2021/2022 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE DESK BOOK

CHAPTER3

Subjects covered:

1. Pleadings (Definition and Sequence)

2. Formal Requirements and Rules

3. Statement of Claim

4. Defence, Counterclaims and Set-Offs

5. Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim

6. Introduction to Third Party Claims

I. Pleadings (Definition and Sequence)

What are Pleadings?

1. Formal documents exchanged among parties to an action, setting out each

party's case (including relevant material facts), e.g. Statement of Claim,
Defence (and Counterclaim), Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim, Third
Party Notice, Further and Better Particulars:

(1) Note: Originating processes (e.g. writ and originating summons),

affidavits/affirmations and Court orders are not pleadings.

2. Note: all pleadings must be filed in Court [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.5A] - this is
done at the same time as when they are seNed on the other party.

Purpose of Pleadings

3. Pleadings have been said to have the following objectives and functions:

3.1
Civil litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3- □ 0C) 18August2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021 /2022 PCLL - Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(1) 'Inform the other side of the nature of the case they have to meet as
distinguished from the mode in which that case is to be proved;

(2) Prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial;

(3) Enable the other side to know what evidence they ought to be prepared
with and to prepare for trial;

(4) Limit the generality of the pleadings, the claim and the evidence;

(5) Limit and define the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is
required; and the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go
into any matters not included .. .'

[Aktieselskabet Dansk Skibsfinansiering v Wheelock Marden & Co Ltd [1994]

2 HKC 264 (Bokhary JA)].

Sequence of Pleadings

4. The sequence in which proceedings and pleadings are to be filed and served
is as follows:

(1) Writ - Plaintiff must serve within 12 months from date of issue (unless
extended by Court) [RHC and RDC 0.6 r.8];

(2) Acknowledgement of Service ("AOS") - in respect of a writ served within

the jurisdiction (i.e. within Hong Kong), Defendant must file AOS in
Court within 14 days after service of writ (including the day of service of
writ) [RHC and RDC 0.12 r.5(a)];

(3) Statement of Claim - if writ was 'generally indorsed' writ (i.e. no

Statement of Claim included in writ), Plaintiff must serve Statement of
Claim within 14 days after AOS (giving notice of intention to defend) is
filed [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.1];

(4) Defence - Defendant must serve Defence (and Counterclaim, if any)

before the expiration of 28 days after the time limited for acknowledging
service of the 'specially indorsed' writ (i.e. Statement of Claim included
in writ) or after the Statement of Claim is served on him, whichever is
the later [amended RHC and RDC 0.18 r.2(1)];

3.2
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 {COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(a) Under the old RHC and RDC 0.18 r.2, the 28 day period used to
be 14 days;

(5) Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim, if any - Plaintiff must serve

Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim, if any, before the expiration of
28 days after the service on him of the Defence (and Counterclaim, if
any) [amended RHC and RDC 0.18 r.3(4)];

(a) Under the old RHC and RDC 0.18 r.3, the 28 day period used to
be 14 days;

(6) All subsequent pleadings, e.g. Rejoinder (Defendant's reply to Reply)

and Surrejoinder (Plaintiff's further reply), can only be served with leave
of Court [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.4];

(7) "Close of pleadings" - under the amended RHC and RDC 0.18 r.20,
pleadings are deemed to be closed:

(i) 14 days after service of Reply/Defence to Counterclaim;

or

(ii) If no Reply/Defence to Counterclaim is served, 28 days

after service of Defence.

II. Formal Requirements and Rules

Formal Requirements

1. Formal requirements for pleadings are set out in RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6.
These are as follows:

(1) State on its face the following information [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6(1)]:

(a) Action number (e.g. HCA [no.]/[year]);

(b) Title of action;

(c) Description of pleading (e.g. 'Statement of Claim');

(d) Date of service (usually on backsheet);

3.3
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 {COMA21-22\C!V-DESKBOOK CAP3_DQC) 18August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(2) Consecutively numbered paragraphs (if necessary), with 'each

allegation being so far as convenient contained in a separate
paragraph' [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6(2)];

(3) 'Dates, sums and other numbers' to be in figures [RHC and RDC 0.18
r.6(3)];

(4) State (usually on the backsheet) [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6(4)]:

(a) If proceeding in person, the party's name and address;

(b) In any other case, 'the name or firm and business address of the
solicitor by whom it was served, and also (if the solicitor is the
agent of another) the name or firm and business address of his
principal';

(5) Signed [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6(5)]:

(a) If settled by counsel, by counsel;

(b) If not, by solicitor; or if proceeding in person, by the party.

(c) Note: the new Practice Direction 19.3 on Statements of Truth

confirms that despite addition of Statement of Truth to a pleading
(see below), pleading must still be signed in accordance with
RHC and RDC 0.18 r.6(5).

2. Under the new RHC and RDC 0.18 r.20A and O.41A, all pleadings and
particulars of pleadings (including amendments thereof) must be verified by a
'statement of truth' ('I/party believe(s) that the facts stated in this [document]
are true'):

(1) For further guidance on the wording of the statement of truth, including
where maker of statement cannot understand or read English or
Chinese, see the new Practice Direction 19.3;

(2) Court may strike out pleading not verified by statement of truth [new
RHC and RDC O.41A r.6];

(3) Court has power to (or certain Practice Directions may) dispense with
this requirement [new RHC and RDC O.41A r.2];

3.4
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.00C) 18August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021 /2022 PCLL - Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(4) New RHC and RDC O.41A r.3 specifies in detail who is to sign the
statement of truth (usually party putting forward document or legal
representative);

(5) Effect of statement of truth - 'party putting forward the document

believes the facts stated in the document are true' [new RHC and RDC
O.41A r.4(1 )];

(6) The act of making (or causing the making) of a false statement ('without
honest belief in its truth') in a document verified by a statement of truth
may be punished in contempt of Court proceedings [new RHC and RDC
O.41A r.9].

Contents of Pleadings - General

3. Only 'material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence'
(emphasis added), not evidence - i.e. what the party says happened, not what
the party will use to prove it [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.7(1)]:

(1) Include the 'effect of any document or the purport of any conversation
referred to in the pleading', but not precise words (unless material, e.g.
libelous words) [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.7(2)];

(2) What are 'material' facts? These are those facts which a party needs to
prove to establish the claim/defence - depends on circumstances;

(3) Plead all material facts, but in summary form.

4. No need to plead any fact if:

(1) Presumed (by law) to be true; or

(2) Other party has burden of proving it is not true,

unless specifically denied in other party's pleading [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.7(3)].
However, if any fact is material, better practice is to plead it expressly anyway.

5. Statement of occurrence of any act/event that is a condition precedent to a

party's case is implied in that party's pleading [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.7(4)], i.e.
no need to plead it expressly. However, again, given that this is most probably
material, may be better practice to plead expressly.

3.5
Civil litigation Practlce Desk Sook Chapter 3 {COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

6. Law:

(1) General rule: do not plead what the law is (the Court knows) or argue
points of law in a pleading;

(2) However, may raise points of law in pleading, e.g. defences relied upon,
such as contributory negligence and limitation [RHC and RDC 0.18
r.11 ];

(3) Even if plead legal conclusion (drawn from pleaded facts), not restricted
to that conclusion but may draw other conclusions from pleaded facts
[e.g. Yeung Wah James v Alfa Sea Ltd [1993] 1 HKC 440 - 'It is
sufficient for the pleader to state material facts. He need not state the
legal result. If, for convenience, he does so, he is not bound by, or
limited to, what he has stated. He can present, in argument, any legal
consequence of which the facts permit.']

7. Certain matters must be pleaded specifically [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.8]:

(1) 'In any pleading subsequent to a statement of claim' (i.e. Defence (and
Counterclaim), Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim etc.), any matter
which:

(a) Makes the opposite party's claim/defence 'not maintainable';

(b) ' ... if not specifically pleaded, might take the opposite party by
surprise'; or

(c) ' ... raises issues of fact not arising out of the preceding pleading';

(2) 'A defendant to an action for recovery of land must plead specifically
every ground of defence on which he relies, and a plea that he is in
possession of the land by himself or his tenant is not sufficient';

(3) Claim for exemplary or provisional damages (with supporting facts);

(4) Claim for interest.

8. Where fraud is alleged, must be pleaded 'distinctly' and 'with utmost

particularity' [e.g. Aktieselskabet Dansk Skibsfinansiering v Wheelock Marden
& Co Ltd, above]:

3.6
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18August2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021 /2022 PCLL - Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(1) 'Distinctly': the party pleading must clearly allege dishonesty or fraud -
' ... if the pleader means "dishonestly" or "fraudulently", it may not be
enough to say "willfully" or "recklessly". Such language is equivocal .. .';

(2) 'With utmost particularity': ' ... an allegation of fraud or dishonesty must
be sufficiently particularised, and that particulars of facts which are
consistent with honesty are not sufficient ... since dishonesty is usually
a matter of inference from primary facts, this involves knowing not only
that [the Defendant] is alleged to have acted dishonestly, but also the
primary facts which will be relied upon at trial to justify the inference .. .'

[Woo VP, in Peconic Industrial Development Ltd v Yu Ka Hong Paul [2006]

HKCU 860, citing from judgment of Lord Millett in Three Rivers District Council
v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1].

9. Inconsistent factual allegations:

(1) A party must not in any pleading 'make any allegation of fact, or raise
any new ground of claim' that is inconsistent with the party's previous
pleading [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.10(1)]:

(a) Note: the above does not stop a party:

(i) Amending a pleading; or

(ii) Pleading claims in the alternative

[RHC and RDC 0.18 r.10(2)];

(2) Under the new RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12A, a party may only make
inconsistent factual allegations in the same pleading if there are
reasonable grounds for this and the allegations are in the alternative.

10. 'Every pleading must contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence
or other matter pleaded' (emphasis added) [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12(1)].

(1) These include:

(a) 'Particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful

default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies';

(b} Where there is an allegation of 'condition of the mind of any

person' (e.g. disorder/disability, malice/fraudulent intention
(including bad faith)}, particulars of facts relied upon; and
3.7
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-OESKBOOK CAP3.00C) 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021 /2022 PCLL - Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(i) Note: knowledge and notice are dealt with separately in

RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12(4):

► Where there is an allegation of knowledge or notice

of something, the party pleading such allegation
must plead particulars of the facts relied upon;

(c) Particulars of facts relied upon 'in mitigation of, or otherwise in

relation to, the amount of damages' claimed against the person
pleading;

(2) Note: special requirements for personal injury actions - see RHC and
RDC 0.18 r.12(1A), (1 B) and (1 C). The Court has also in caselaw set
out the scope of particulars required for pleading of certain matters,
such as libel, contracts, misrepresentation etc.;

(3) Court may (either of its own motion or upon application [new RHC and
RDC 0.18 r.12(3A)]) order party to give particulars (known as 'further
and better particulars') [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12(3)], e.g.:

(a) Note: Party requesting particulars should make request by letter

before applying to Court, otherwise 'the Court may refuse to
make the order unless of opinion that there were sufficient
reasons for an application by letter not having been made' [RHC
and RDC 0.18 r.12(6)];

(b) Note: under new RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12(38), Court not to
make Order unless it is of the opinion that the order is 'necessary
either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving
costs';

(c) Note: Court not to make Order before service of Defence, 'unless,
in the opinion of the Court, the Order is necessary or desirable to
enable the defendant to plead or for some other special reason'
[RHC and RDC 0.18 r.12(5)].

Ill. Statement of Claim

1. RHC and RDC 0.18 r.15 provides certain requirements specific to a Statement
of Claim:

3.8
Clvil litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAPS.DOC) 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(1) Must state the relief or remedy claimed (i.e. what orders Plaintiff wants
Court to make), but no need to plead claim for costs [RHC and RDC
0.18 r.15(1)] except in the prayer section;

(2) Allegations/claims in Statement of Claim must be in respect of or '[arise]

from facts which are the same as, or include or form part of, facts giving
rise to' a cause of action mentioned in (generally indorsed) writ [RHC
and RDC 0.18 r.15(2)];

(3) Must bear a statement of the date on which writ was issued [RHC and
RDC 0.18 r.15(3)].

IV. Defence, Counterclaims and Set-Offs

1. Admissions, non-admissions and denials [RHC and RDC 0.18 rr.13 and 14]:

(1) General rule: each allegation is deemed to be admitted unless

specifically (not just generally) 'traversed' or there is 'joinder of issue':

(a) 'Traversed' - either:

(i) Denial; or

► Direct denial, e.g. the alleged event did not happen;

or

► "Confess and avoid", i.e. admit the alleged facts,

but deny the legal result sought to be drawn by
Plaintiff from those facts;

► Note: in respect of denials of allegations made in

the Statement of Claim (or Counterclaim), party
must state reasons for the denials and the party's
own version of events (if different and intends to
put forward different version), i.e. cannot plead
bare denials any more [new RHC 0.18 r.13(5) and
RDC 0.18 r.13(4)];

(ii) Non-admission, i.e. not an admission and not a denial, but

put Plaintiff to proof. However, Defendant cannot put
forward contrary case regarding that allegation [otherwise,
why not deny and plead party's own version?];
3.9
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 {COMA21-22\C!V-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC} 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(b) 'Joinder of issue':

(i) When it applies, a joinder of issue ' ... operates as a

non-admission of every material allegation of fact made in
the pleading .. .' [amended RHC and RDC 0.18 r.14(4)];

(ii) General rule: joinder of issue can be expressed or implied:

► A party can in a pleading expressly "join issue" on

the pleading served immediately before its own
current pleading, i.e. this will operate as a
non-admission of every material allegation of fact
made in the last pleading [RHC and RDC 0.18
r.14(2)(b)]:

• In an expressed joinder of issue, a party can,

if it wishes, admit certain factual allegations
in the last pleading. The expressed joinder
of issue will then operate as a
non-admission of every other material
allegation of fact in that last pleading
[amended RHC and RDC 0.18 r.14(4)];

► General rule: at close of pleadings, there is 'an

implied joinder of issue on the pleading last served'
[RHC and RDC 0.18 r.14(2)]:

• E.g. if Defence is served by Defendant but

no Reply is served by Plaintiff, at close of
pleadings, Plaintiff is presumed to have not
admitted every material allegation in the
Defence [see also RHC and RDC 0.18
r.14(1 )];

► Exception: there can be no joinder of issue

(expressed or implied) on Statement of Claim (or
Counterclaim) [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.14(3)] - i.e.
MUST traverse specifically every allegation in
Statement of Claim (and Counterclaim). otherwise
deemed to admit allegations:

3.10
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate CerUficate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

• Be careful when a paragraph contains more

than 1 allegation;

• Exception: a Defendant who has failed to

deal with an allegation but has set out the
nature of his case in relation to which that
allegation is relevant, is deemed not to admit
and to put the Plaintiff to proof of such
allegation. (The above also applies to a
plaintiff dealing with an allegation in the
Counterclaim) [new RHC 0.18 r.13(6) and
ROG 0.18 r.13(5)].

2. Set-off [RHC and ROG 0.18 r.17]:

(1) 'Where a claim by a defendant to a sum of money ... is relied on as a

defence to the whole or part of a claim made by the plaintiff, it may be
included in the defence and set-off against the plaintiff's claim, whether
or not it is also added as a counterclaim';

(2) E.g. if Plaintiff and Defendant each claims a money sum against the
other, Defendant's claim can be 'set-off' against Plaintiff's claim (i.e.
reduce or extinguish it);

(3) Remember: set-off is only available in limited circumstances, e.g.

mutual debts, related transactions;

(4) Plead set-off specifically.

3. Usually there is a "catch-all" statement of traverse at the end of a Defence:

(1) E.g. 'Save as expressly admitted or not admitted in this Defence, each
and every allegation contained in the Statement of Claim is denied as if
the same is set forth herein and traversed seriatim';

(2) The above is not a substitute for a properly pleaded Defence [see RHC
and ROG 0.18 r.13(3)].

4. Counterclaim [RHC and ROG 0.15 rr.2 and 3]:

(1) Independent claim by Defendant back against Plaintiff in same action;

3.11
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18August 2021
Clly University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(2) Treated as a separate claim - counterclaiming Defendant regarded as in

position of a plaintiff, e.g. even if Court grants judgment to Plaintiff on its
claim against Defendant, Defendant's counterclaim can proceed by way
of separate action against Plaintiff [RHC and RDC 0.15 rr.2(1) and (3)];

(3) Counterclaim does not need to arise from same transactions as main
action. However, Court will not deal with Counterclaim in main action if
'subject-matter of the counterclaim ought for any reason to be disposed
of by a separate action' [RHC and RDC 0.15 r.5(2)];

(4) Counterclaim (if any) must be part of the Defence (in the same
document) [RHC and RDC 0.15 r.2(1)];

(5) Can also counterclaim against other parties together with Plaintiff [RHC
and RDC 0.15 r.3].

V. Reply and/or Defence to Counterclaim

1. Reply:

(1) Plaintiff's response to Defence;

(2) If no Reply served, there is an 'implied joinder of issue' on the Defence

[RHC and RDC 0.18 r.14(1 )] - i.e. all material allegations of fact made in
Defence are not admitted; apart from this (or if Reply is served), same
rules re admissions, non-admissions, denials and joinder of issue;

(3) Sometimes a Reply is necessary, e.g. in respect of any matter falling

within RHC and RDC 0.18 r.8(1) (i.e. matters that need to be
specifically pleaded).

2. Defence to Counterclaim

(1) Note: as mentioned above, no joinder of issue on Counterclaim [RHC

and RDC 0.18 r.14(3)] - i.e. MUST traverse specifically every allegation
in Counterclaim, otherwise deemed to admit allegations:

(a) As mentioned above, under civil justice reform, even if Plaintiff

fails (in Defence to Counterclaim) to deal with an allegation in
Counterclaim, but Defence to Counterclaim has set out the
nature of Plaintiff's case in relation to which that allegation is
relevant, Plaintiff is deemed not to admit that allegation.
3.12
Civil litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021 /2022 PCLL - Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

Therefore Defendant will still have to prove that allegation [new

RHC 0.18 r.13(6) and RDC 0.18 r.13(5)].

(2) If Plaintiff serves both a Reply and a Defence to Counterclaim, these

must be in the same document [RHC and RDC 0.18 r.3(3)].

VI. Third Party Claims

General

1. Where Defendant (who does not have counterclaim against Plaintiff) has a
claim against someone else (e.g. to share liability), Defendant may make use
of the 'Third Party" procedure in RHC and RDC 0.16.

2. Under RHC and RDC 0.16 r.1(1), the Defendant (who has given notice of
intention to defend) can make a claim against a person who is not yet a party
to the action, for:

(1) A contribution or an indemnity - 0.16 r.1 (1 )(a);

(2) Any relief or remedy relating to the original subject matter of the action,
which is substantially the same as the relief or remedy claimed by the
Plaintiff-O.16 r.1(1)(b); or

(3) Any question or issue relating to the original subject matter of the action
to be decided by the Court not just between Plaintiff and Defendant, but
also between one or both of them and that person - 0.16 r.1(1)(c).

3. The Defendant will issue a "Third Party Notice", 'containing a statement of the
nature of the claim made against [the third party] and, as the case may be,
either of the nature and grounds of the claim made by him or of the question or
issue required to be determined' [RHC and RDC 0.16 r.1 (1 )].

4. In a writ action, the Defendant should issue the Third Party Notice before
serving the Defence (otherwise would need the Court's leave to issue the Third
Party Notice) [RHC and RDC 0.16 r.1 (2)].

5. Upon service of the Third Party Notice, the Third Party becomes a party to the
action 'with the same rights in respect of his defence against any claim made
against him in the notice and otherwise as if he had been duly sued in the
ordinary way by the defendant by whom the notice is issued' [RHC and RDC
0.16 r.1(3)]:
3.13
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\CIV-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18 August 2021
Clty University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certificate in Laws 2021-2022
2021/2022 PCLL- Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3

(1) If the Third Party intends to defend against the Defendant's claim, it
must file an appropriate AOS form at Court, and then participate in the
action in accordance with the Court rules and the Court's directions,
including filing and serving a Third Party Defence, giving Third Party
Discovery (if ordered), etc.

6. Note: where the proposed 'Third Party" is already a party to the same action,
e.g. a co-Defendant, the Defendant can make a Third Party claim against this
co-Defendant under RHC and RDC 0.16 r.8. The procedure there is slightly
different.

7. The purposes of Third Party proceedings include to prevent multiple actions

about the same or very similar subject matters going on in parallel (which may
give rise to inconsistent results) and to save costs by bringing all interested
parties before the Court at the same time.

Distinction Between Third Party Procedure Under 0.16 and Counterclaim Procedure
Under0.15

8. Contrast the above Third Party situation with situation where Defendant:

(1) Counterclaims against Plaintiff; and

(2) In respect of another person (whether or not already a party to the

action), either:

(a) Alleges that this person is liable to Defendant together with

Plaintiff in respect of the subject matter of counterclaim; or

(b) Claims against this person any relief relating to or connected with
the original subject matter of the action.

Defendant may join this other person as a party to the counterclaim [see RHC
and RDC 0.15 r.3 and 0.16 r.8(2)]. In this situation, Defendant's claim against
this other person can only proceed under counterclaim procedure in RHC and
RDC 0.15 r.3, not Third Party procedure in RHC and RDC 0.16.

3.14
Civil Litigation Practice Desk Book Chapter 3 (COMA21-22\C1V-DESKBOOK CAP3.DOC) 18 August 2021
City University of Hong Kong Postgraduate Certlficate ln Laws 2021-2022
 AR1tnRsEtsKABEio~s1t'.s~$~JN~$•Gv·wr:mEtoc1t·MAROBN•&
· ···· ·· · · · co::r,1i,&I0RS · · · ·
·. ·.·.·.· . · [IJ941li~8ie4

\ ~~~as<M ,~~i... .·• .

. Ourprncedure.aililsto etlSUfR•t\111t1~ttgatfow¥artiytjl\trlj\ftte •trial•.itse1{,·1S eonduqted
·fairly,:011c!Ily;Ire$lJrows~ui;pJJiStl,.:~1:1tl,t<.yit~out:unne9tl~S!iJ;J•(l~li!,ytn~•C~:P~~e, lu•flte ·
att~fiime11t•\:lt.tllat~liie9i1y~>JJie~d111g$,.httye;llifurt~aTic1enta1j-oietoplay, J;\ecording1y,
•tlt~r¢areii,~~~ei?ftliin$~:¥1'bi¢!%lpJe#dwg1ish:ouldd6:·1aeaiiy,Jhe,y, wouh:t'rluthem· ·
.. ''frotrtthe .•o#tsl'lfrln,,~yi~v:enti1:b.ey.b}µsi~lp1thehirf1the.t11tie,theybave·•·l;iee1tproper!y
,partidlllfl!iZed .c;,vhct11ef,p~cul~1ze(l.xi,n,rheipleader'll:.owairi1tiative;·upoU;the··other
. •side'sc:regitz'lst; or :i:,utllua~tto tfu\'l(9p11ttki•QrderJ • · · · ·

Whatt1mse,thiug&•ar~.isto'b{;.gathered,Jrom•:thedeeitledcases.That·exeteise.hasbeen
µer.fonnei:lbytli.eleametledifors:{).ftli¢,•lf9$ SiJpreme·.Ooutt Ptactice,.•A,n.<i,·,as one sees
· fron:t)11ote 18/l2/2•at,;pp 30'7~30&:0f'Y¢11 thereqf; the.things wllichprpperly ·
•partfuularizciJ;:pleatliµgsn:tust dCl;&e to: ·. . ·. . ..· ·
(1)•ittformthe'.othei••sioe.:of:the,natureoi''lhe.ease)ilie:y'liavei~.meet
·.•(3)·enaj)lej;he,ptlie,r
;;)ut~!;tl;l~fii~Jlf:,ti!1a1!~J!~~!Jt1Jf:f{l!~j!
•. side,:to,kno\v.w~ahev,ide,11ce·they.m~ghtto•·be
. prepm;ed :withcatidto;p~arefartriak . . . .. . .
·. •(4)'l~mitthe,g:encrality nf..Uie•pte a(llllgs~theciaimcandthe: evidence;
·. (51 Hn:titattddfl.fute tl:te•issue:s tobe ;tiieu;•ailff'!is fo. ~liich .· · . ..
··• disodyery:isreqµirea; a:rid~he:haU:ds 0£,t4epa,ttyscrtlmthe.
•··.ca1111otwitnpul;Ie,aye;go:iutQ:imyn:iatt~r<tnot;jnclu6:ed{iuthoµgh
iftl\e pppcmintonjts:tQ ask [*27Ql,f01; pat;tipufars, .. . .· · ·
. . evidence.may be,,givenwhidh:s11ppo;rtsa11.y:n1ateria.tallegationin
the pieadiO:gs)'. · · · ·. · ·· · ·· ·· · · · ··

... ••· •ann e~~ecially~'hei:e•frauff•i~;~Ileged

tqtoo.ie~eraJit]of•the.forego~~·,~l~t'b~add~the.special.rwetbataHegatioris·.•.offraud
n1ti~tbe pleadeddisti11ctly and ,,vith.\he utmostpal'ticularity.The word 'distinctly' is the ·
one used qy '.l)hesiger LJin ms we:lbk11mwi:staten:ieri.tJn Davy v Garrett defattlt (1878) 7
. ChD4'73 ~tP•489 astd ho,.vftaudic&tob~:pleaded. .And the expression 'utmost
particularity'/USQneseesSfrom note.•,l8/8/Kat p297. ofVol ·1·. ofthe l99JSupremeCourt
· .Practicedefault,is: the nne choseri.byitsleamed effitorsandlias.the authority of their
. com.bi11ed:eitperience. Thatspeciiilitlie;i.risesjni!iis .case; ·

:N.ev.erbeforeas lll:ucllas uow•

3.15
 None of the basic rules of pleading have anything to do with technicality. All of them
have everything to do with practical justice. They have always been of importance. Never
before as much as now. For these days, there are more and more cases so vast and so
complex that they push practically to its limit our system's capacity effectively to cope
.with them. Any laxity in their proper management, whether in regard to pleadings or
anything else, can all too easily result in such cases spinning into confusion if not chaos -
- even before trial but especially at trial. The present case, for the trial of which half a
year has been reserved, is such a case.

3.16
 Writ Action: Early Time Periods

P - Issue of Writ and 12 months to Serve

P - Service [How and on Whom] N.B. "Deemed day of Service of Writ"

Writ & Full Statement of Claim "Generally lndorsed Writ"

Only

D - 14 days inclusive from date of service D - 14 days inclusive from date

of writ to file Acknowledgment of Service of service of writ to file AOS

l
D - If gives notice of intention to defend
28 more days exc. to serve Defence &
CIC*

P - If D gives notice of intention

to defend 14 days exc. to serve
Full SOC*

P - 28 days exc. to serve Reply &

Defence to CIC*

D - 28 days exc. to serve

Defence & CIC*

i
P - 28 days exc. to serve
Reply & Defence to CIC*

• Subject to agreement between the parties, or leave of the court pursuant to a "time
summons" issued by the Applicant requiring more time and heard in the "three-minute
list" on at least one day's notice to other parties (RHCIRDC 0.3 r.5)

CLOSE OF PLEADINGS

3.17
 SAMPLE

2.2 GENERALLY INDORSED WRIT OF SUMMONS (statement of

claim not served with writ)

The Plaintiff's claim is for:-

1. Damages in the sum of HK$1,800,000 for breach of a written

agreement dated 1st March 2011 made between the Plaintiff as
the buyer and the Defendant as the seller of 500 high quality
men's designer jackets and 500 high quality men's designer suits.

[Damages in the sum of HK$1,800,000 for breach of an oral

agreement reached on 1st March 2011 between the Plaintiff
(represented by its director Mr. Billy Chau) as the buyer and the
Defendant (represented by its general manager Ms. Cindy
Fong)as the seller of 500 high quality men's designer jackets and
500 high quality men's designer suits.]

2. Interest.
3. Costs.
4. Further and other relief.

3.18
 Adapted from Legal Practice Manual - Civil Litigation (Rapinet & Leung)

SAMPLE

2.3 SPECIALLY INDORSED WRIT OF SUMMONS (statement of

claim served with writ)

·rc!<h~)Yle~g~Hl~nt•()tt~~<:e,.•.e~<:,~~~!•~~?\VD.itfisfnil'l~<e?Allme11t••·2•.E
aee aBBf()Prh\teadl1l½si~11 <fo~Hl•··•· i,\./9!1i11ese {tr~sl~~()f' i11clu~mg·. a
S:tll»Hl~!)'Pttl-i~•.,ellef ~pu;lit,·••13h()Ulc(·b~.·•·•itlslllded . . in.:the··circ:umstilllC~S·
se{ou.tinPractice Dii:ection24,2 · · · · · · ·

1. At all material times:-

(1) The Plaintiff is and was a limited company incorporated in

Hong Kong under the provisions of the Companies
Ordinance, Cap 32, with its registered office situated at
[address].

(2) The Defendant is and was a limited company incorporated

in Hong Kong under the provisions of the Companies
Ordinance, Cap 32, with its registered office situated at
[address].

2. By a written agreement dated 1st March 2011 between the

Plaintiff as the buyer and the Defendant as the seller (the
"Contract"), the Plaintiff agreed to buy and the Defendant
agreed to sell 500 high quality men's designer jackets (the
"Jackets") and 500 high quality men's designer suits (the "Suits")
for the price of HK$ l,500,000 (the "Contract Price").

[By an oral agreement reached on 1st March 2011 between the

Plaintiff (represented by its director Mr. Billy Chau) as the buyer
and the Defendant (represented by its general manager Ms.
Cindy Fong) as the seller (the "Contract"), the Plaintiff agreed to
buy and the Defendant agreed to sell 500 high quality men's
designer jackets (the "Jackets") and 500 high quality men's
designer suits (the "Suits") for the price of HK$ l,500,000 (the
"Contract Pnee· ") .l

3.19
3. The Contract contained the following expressed terms [agreed
between Mr. Billy Chau ("Mr. Chau") and Ms. Cindy Fong ("Ms.
Fong") on even date]:-

(1) The Contract Price to be paid by the Plaintiff to the

Defendant by banker's draft on or before 11 th April 2011.
(2) The price for the Jackets is HK$750,000.
(3) The price for the Suits is HK$750,000.

4. Further, in a telephone conversation on 2"d March 2011 between

Mr. Chau and Ms. Fong, it was also expressly agreed between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Jackets and Suits were to be
delivered by the Defendant on or before 31st March 2011 to
enable the Plaintiff to on-sell them on or before 20 th April 2011
to its customer.

5. The implied terms of the Contract, so far as they are material,

were as follows:-

(1) The Jackets and Suits should be reasonably fit for the
purpose for which the Plaintiff required them, namely for
on-sale to its customer.

(2) The Jackets and Suits should be of merchantable quality.

(3) Time should in every respect be of the essence of the

Contract.

6. At all material times, the Defendant knew or ought to have

known that the Jackets and Suits were required by the Plaintiff
for on-sale to its customer on or before 2ot1, April 2011.

7. In performance of the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiff paid

the Contract Price to the Defendant on 11 th April 2011 by way of
a banker's draft.

8. Wrongfully and in breach of the terms of the Contract, the

Jackets supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff were badly
packed and were irreparably damaged as a result of the condition
of the packing.

3.20
 9. Wrongfully and in further breach of the terms of the Contract,
the Defendant failed to deliver the Jackets and Suits on 20 th
April 2011 but delivered them to the Plaintiff on 30th April 2011.
As a result of this late delivery, the Plaintiff has failed to on-sell
the Suits. The Plaintiff was never in a position to on-sell the
Jackets in view of their condition as stated in paragraph 8 above.

10. By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 8 and 9 above,

the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.

PARTICULARS

Lost of Profits

( 1) On-sale value of the Jackets HK$900,000

(2) On-sale value of the Suits HK$900,000
LESS Contract Price paid to Defendant: (HK$1.500,000)
HK$300,000

Contract Price

(3) Contract Price paid to Defendant HK$1.500,000

Total: HK$1,800,000

11. Further, the Plaintiff is entitled to and claims interest pursuant

to section 48 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, at such rates
and for such periods as the court may think fit.

AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR:

(1) damages in the sum ofHK$1,800,000 under paragraph 10

above; or alternatively, damages for breach of the Contract
to be assessed;
(2) interest pursuant to section 48 of the High Court
Ordinance, Cap 4.;
(3) costs of this action; and
(4) further or other relief.

Dated the [date) day of [month) 20[ ).

3.21
 [name of counsel]
[Counsel for the Plaintiff!

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Statement of Truth

The Plaintiff believes that the facts stated in this Statement of Claim are
true.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[name of representative of Plaintiff/solicitor firm]

3.22
 Adapted from Legal Practice Manual - Civil Litigation (Rapinet & Leung)

SAMPLE

2.3 STATEMENT OF CLAIM (served separately from writ)

HCA [case no.l/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Writ issued on [date])

1. At all material times:-

a. The Plaintiff is and was a limited company incorporated in

Hong Kong under the provisions of the Companies
Ordinance, Cap 32, with its registered office situated at
[address].

b. The Defendant is and was a limited company incorporated in

Hong Kong under the provisions of the Companies
Ordinance, Cap 3 2, with its registered office situated at
[address].

3.23
2. By a written agreement dated 1st March 2011 between the Plaintiff
as the buyer and the Defendant as the seller (the "Contract"), the
Plaintiff agreed to buy and the Defendant agreed to sell 500 high
quality men's designer jackets (the "Jackets") and 500 high quality
men's designer suits (the "Suits") for the price of HK$1,500,000 (the
"Contract Price").

[By an oral agreement reached on 1" March 2011 between the

Plaintiff (represented by its director Mr. Billy Chau) as the buyer
and the Defendant (represented by its general manager Ms. Cindy
Fong) as the seller (the "Contract"), the Plaintiff agreed to buy and
the Defendant agreed to sell 500 high quality men's designer jackets
(the "Jackets") and 500 high quality men's designer suits (the "Suits")
for the price of HK$1,500,000 (the "Contract Price").]

3. The Contract contained the following expressed terms [agreed

between Mr. Billy Chau ("Mr. Chau") and Ms. Cindy Fong ("Ms.
Fong") on even date]:-

a. The Contract Price to be paid by the Plaintiff to the

Defendant by banker's draft on or before 11 th April 2011.
b. The price for the Jackets is HK$750,000.
c. The price for the Suits is HK$750,000.

4. Further, in a telephone conversation on znd March 2011 between

Mr. Chau and Ms. Fong, it was also expressly agreed between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Jackets and Suits were to be
delivered by the Defendant on or before 31st March 2011 to enable
the Plaintiff to on-sell them on or before 20 th April 2011 to its
customer.

5. The implied terms of the Contract, so far as they are material, were
as follows:-

a. The Jackets and Suits should be reasonably fit for the purpose
for which the Plaintiff required them, namely for on-sale to its
customer.

b. The Jackets and Suits should be of merchantable quality.

c. Time should in every respect be of the essence of the Contract.

3.24
6. At all material times, the Defendant knew or ought to have known
that the Jackets and Suits were required by the Plaintiff for on-sale to
its customer on or before 20 th April 2011.

7. In performance of the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiff paid the

Contract Price to the Defendant on 11th April 2011 by way of a
banker's draft.

8. Wrongfully and in breach of the terms of the Contract, the Jackets

supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff were badly packed and
were irreparably damaged as a result of the condition of the packing.

9. Wrongfully and in further breach of the terms of the Contract, the

Defendant failed to deliver the Jackets and Suits on 20 th April 2011
but delivered them to the Plaintiff on 30 th April 2011. As a result of
this late delivery, the Plaintiff has failed to on-sell the Suits. The
Plaintiff was never in a position to on-sell the Jackets in view of their
condition as stated in paragraph 8 above.

IO.By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, the

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.

PARTICULARS

Lost of Profits

(1) On-sale value of the Jackets HK$900,000

(2) On-sale value of the Suits HK$900,000
LESS Contract Price paid to Defendant: (HK$1,500.000)
HK$300,000

Contract Price

(3) Contract Price paid to Defendant HK$1,500.000

Total: HK$1,SOO,OOO

I I.Further, the Plaintiff is entitled to and claims interest pursuant to

section 48 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, at such rates and
for such periods as the court may think fit.

3.25
AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR:

a. damages in the sum of HK$1,800,000 under paragraph 10

above; or alternatively, damages for breach of the Contract to
be assessed;
b. interest pursuant to section 48 of the High Court Ordinance,
Cap4.;
c. costs of this action; and
d. further or other relief.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[name of counsel]
[Counsel for the Plaintiff]

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Statement of Truth

The Plaintiff believes that the facts stated in this Statement of Claim are
true.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[name of representative of Plaintiff/solicitor firm]

3.26
 HCA [case no.]/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Dated the [date] of [month] 20[

Filed the [date] of [month] 20[

[name of solicitors firm]

[address of solicitors firm]
[telephone number]
[fax number]
[reference number]

3.27
 Adapted from Legal Practice Manual - Civil Litigation (Rapinet & Leung)

SAMPLE

2.4 DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

HCA [case no.l/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENCE

1. Unless otherwise expressly stated:-

(1) References herein to the numbered paragraphs are references

to the corresponding paragraphs in the Statement of Claim.

(2) The Defendant adopts the defined terms in the Statement of

Claim.

2. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted.

3. Save that the Contract contained some of the terms, paragraph 3

is not admitted.

3.28
4. Paragraph 4 is denied. Save that there was a telephone
conversation between Mr. Chau and Ms. Fong on zna
March
2011, no agreement was reached as to the terms of the Contract
as alleged. The agreement reached was for delivery of the Jackets
and Suits by 1st May 2011 and for payment of an additional
HK$50,000 should delivery be made on or before 1st May 2011.

5. Paragraph 5 is admitted.

6. The Defendant has no knowledge of the matters pleaded in

paragraph 6 as alleged or at all. The Defendant puts the Plaintiff
to strict proof of the matters stated therein.

7. Save that the Purchase Price was received by the Defendant from
the Plaintiff on 11th April 2011 in the form of a banker's draft,
no admission is made as to paragraph 7.

8. Paragraph 8 is not admitted. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof

thereof.

9. Paragraph 9 is denied. The Defendant avers and says that

pursuant to the agreement reached on 2nd March 2011 pleaded
in paragraph 4 above, the date for delivery of the Jackets and
Suits was varied by an extension of 1 month from 31 st March
2011 and therefore the delivery of the Jackets and Suits to the
Plaintiff on 30th April 2011 was made in accordance with the
terms of the Contract as subsequently varied.

10. The particulars of!oss under paragraph 10 are denied.

11. Accordingly, it is denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to interest

whether as alleged in paragraph 11, or at all.

12. Save as expressly admitted in this defence, each and every

allegation contained in the Statement of Claim is denied as if the
same were set out herein and traversed seriatim.

COUNTERCLAIM

13. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 12 above inclusive.

3.29
 14. As a consequence of the agreement reached on znd March 2011
and the delivery of the Jackets and Suits on 30th April 2011, the
Defendant is entitled to additional payment of HK$50,000.

15. By a letter dated 26 th May 2011, the Defendant claimed the sum
of HK$50,000 from the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff has failed to
pay the same.

16. Further, the Defendant is entitled to interest pursuant to section

48 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4), at such rate and for
such period as the court may think fit.

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS:

(1) the sum of HK$50,000;

(2) interest;
(3) costs; and
(4) further or other relief.

Dated this [date] of[month] 20[

[name of counsel]
[Counsel for the Defendant]

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Defendant

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence and
Counterclaim are true.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[name of representative of Defendant/solicitor firm]

3.30
 HCA [case no.]/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

Dated the[date] of [month] 20[

Filed the [date] of [month] 20[

[name of solicitors firm]

[address of solicitors firm]
[telephone number]
[fax number]
[reference number]

3.31
 SAMPLE

2.5 DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

DCCJ [case no.l/20(

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[ ]

BETWEEN

ASTON MILLER Plaintiff

and

ROSE HOLTS Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENCE

1. Unless otherwise expressly stated:-

(1) References herein to the numbered paragraphs are references

to the corresponding paragraphs in the Statement of Claim.

(2) The Defendant adopts the defined terms in the Statement of

Claim.

2. Paragraph 1 is admitted.

3. By an oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

made on or about 30 th June 2010, Triangle Co. Ltd., a company
wholly owned by the Defendant, pledged 349,990 shares (the
"Shares") in Oval Ltd., now known as Round International Co.
Ltd., to the Plaintiff, as security in relation to a loan facility of

3.32
 HK$600,000 granted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff (the
"Loan and Pledge Agreement").

4. The following were, inter alia, the express terms of the Loan and
Pledge Agreement:-

(1) The Plaintiff was at liberty to use the Shares as security in

relation to a margin account held by the Plaintiff with
Internationale Rectangle Bank N.V.

(2) The Defendant was to transfer the Shares to Star Limited.

(3) The Plaintiff would not authorise or permit, or cause to be

authorised, the sale of the Shares or otherwise directly or
indirectly deal unlawfully with the Shares, whether for the
purposes of settling his, or any other person's, debt with
Internationale Rectangle Bank N.V. in relation to the margin
account or at all.

(4) The Shares were redeemable by the Defendant on:

(a) settlement by the Defendant of any sums due under

the said loan facility; and

(b) demand of the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the

return of the same.

5. Alternatively, the terms pleaded in paragraphs 4(3) and 4(4)

hereof are implied terms of the Loan and Pledge Agreement.

6. On or about 30th June 2010, at the Plaintiffs request and

pursuant to the term of the Loan and Pledge Agreement pleaded
at paragraph 4(2) hereof, the Shares were transferred to Star
Limited.

7. In the premises, the Defendant retained an equitable interest

and the reversionary interest in the Shares.

3.33
8. In early July 2010, pursuant to the Loan and Pledge Agreement,
the Defendant drew down the sum of HK$150,000 from the
loan facility (the "Loan") which sum was paid, by a corporation,
one Moon Limited, for and on behalf of the Plaintiff, to the
Defendant by two equal cheques dated 2nd and 6 th July 2010.

9. Save that it is admitted that the Plaintiff lent the sum of

HK$150,000 as aforesaid, paragraph 2 is not admitted.

10. Save that it is admitted that the Defendant's solicitors, Messrs.

Yoko & Associates, wrote to the Plaintiff under cover of a letter
dated 7th July 2011, paragraph 3 is denied.

11. As to paragraph 4:-

(1) It is not admitted that the Plaintiff has made repeated

demands and requests for repayment of the Loan.

(2) It is denied that the Defendant has failed and refused to repay
the Loan to the Plaintiff.

(3) It is averred that the Loan has been repaid or otherwise

extinguished as pleaded herein.

12. Wrongfully and in breach of the express or alternatively implied

terms of the Loan and Pledge Agreement pleaded at paragraphs
4(3) and 5 above, on or around divers dates between 26 th January
and 10 th April 2011, the Plaintiff gave instructions to, or
alternatively authorised or permitted, Star Limited to sell the
Shares.

PARTICULARS OF THE SALE OF THE SHARES

Date HK$/share Nos. of shares HK$value

26/1/11 1.1020 2000 2,204

27/1/11 1.1003 5,800 6,381.74
11/3/11 1.1000 21,260 23,386
16/3/11 1.1000 4,000 4,400
19/3/11 1.1010 3,000 3,303
22/3/11 1.1010 8,000 8,808

3.34
10/4/11 1.1060 305,930 338,358.58
Total: 349,990 386,841.32

13. Further or alternatively, if, which is denied, the Plaintiff was

entitled to enforce his security by causing or permitting the sale
of the Shares then the Loan has been satisfied by the realisation
of the said security and the Plaintiff is liable to account to the
Defendant for the surplus of HK$236,841.32 being the amount
by which the proceeds of sale exceeded the amount of Loan.

14. In the premises, it is denied that the Defendant is liable to the

Plaintiff as alleged or at all, or that the Plaintiff is entitled to the
relief claimed or any relief.

15. Save as expressly admitted in this Defence, each and every

allegation contained in the Statement of Claim is denied as it the
same is set forth herein and traversed seriatim.

16. ~~rt~¢f '◊t ,i~i1:¢f;~1:i*ely, }1£, 8§~rrJry···t() )ref. • r5.¢f¢;i~i th~

I)efej<iaflt isf9t111dc\hlble•· tp,1:µe••.? lfi11tiffheJ~ir1,.the 'Defe1111aflt
\Vill see¥.F?: set9:ff tµf. SU~ cgµ~terrlah.1te\1 against.•the•·Plaintift's.
claim.in. •dimin1.1tio:ri .orextirictihn.·thereof;

COUNTERCLAIM

17. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 14 of her Defence herein.

18. By letter to the Plaintiff dated 7th July 2011 from his solicitors,
the Defendant demanded the return of the Shares or their
replacement. The Plaintiff has failed and/ or refused to return or
replace the Shares.

19. By reason of the wrongful instruction, authorisation or

permission to sell the Shares pleaded in paragraph 12 above, the
Plaintiff has injured the Defendant's reversionary interest in the
Shares and the Defendant has thereby suffered loss and damage.

20. Further or alternatively, by reason of the breach of contract

pleaded in paragraph 12 above, the Defendant has suffered loss
and damage.

3.35
 PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

The market value of the Shares as at 7th July 2011: HK$476,983.74

21. In the further alternative, in breach of the obligation pleaded at

paragraph 13 above, the Plaintiff has failed and/or refused to pay
the said sum of HK$236,84 l.32 or any part thereof.

22. The Defendant is entitled to and claims interest on any sum

found due to her pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of the District
Court Ordinance, Cap 336, at such rate and for such period as
this Honourable Court shall deem fit.

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS:

(1) the sum ofHK$476,983.74;

(2) damages for injury to reversionary interest;
(3) damages for breach of contract;
(4) the sum of HK$236,84 l.32 being the amount by which the
proceeds of sale of the Shares exceeded the amount of Loan;
(5) interest as aforesaid;
(6) costs; and
(7) further or other relief.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[

[name of counsel]
[Counsel for the Defendant]

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Defendant

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence and Counterclaim are true.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[Defendant]

3.36
 DCCJ [case no.]/20[

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[ ]

BETWEEN

ASTON MILLER Plaintiff

and

ROSE HOLTS Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

Dated the [date] day of [month) 20[

Filed the [date] day of [month] 20[

[name of solicitors firm]

[address of solicitors firm]
[telephone number]
[fax number]
[reference number]

3.37
 SAMPLE

2.6 REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

DCCJ [case no.]/20[

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[ ]

BETWEEN

ASTON MILLER Plaintiff

and

ROSE HOLTS Defendant

REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

REPLY

1. Save in so far as the same consists of admissions, the Plaintiff

joins issue with the Defendant upon the Defence and
Counterclaim.

2. Unless otherwise expressly stated:-

(1) References herein to the numbered paragraphs are references

to the corresponding paragraphs in the Defence and
Counterclaim.

(2) The Plaintiff adopts the defined terms in the Statement of

Claim and Defence and Counterclaim.

3. In relation to paragraphs 2 to 6, the Plaintiff avers as follows:-

(1) The Loan and Pledge Agreement did not exist.

3.38
 (2) Over the period between June 2010 and July 2010, at the
request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff from time to time
placed lawful bets on horse racing in both the Hong Kong
Jockey Club and the Macau Jockey Club for and on behalf of
the Defendant.

(3) In June 2010, there was a running loss of the approximate

sum of HK$250,000 which remained due and payable by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of the betting on horse
racing under paragraph 3(2) above. Statements of account
were from time to time rendered to the Defendant and at no
time did the Defendant raise any objection thereto.

(4)At the material times, and in particular in or about June 2010,

the Plaintiff owed money to Star Limited.

(5) Upon demand by the Plaintiff for settlement of the running

debts in the horse racing betting account, the Defendant
agreed to transfer the Shares to the Star Limited in return for
Star Limited not to take legal action against the Plaintiff for
recovery of the debts owed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant
agreed, inter alia, that the Shares so transferred to Star
Limited could be disposed of by Star Limited anytime it liked
and to apply the proceeds of sale to set off the debt owed by
the Plaintiff to it.

(6) For all intent and purposes, the Defendant agreed that title of
the Shares would be transferred to Star Limited. The Shares
were transferred by the Defendant to Star Limited on or
about 30th June 2010.

4. Save that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a sum of

HK$150,000, which sum was paid by 2 cheques drawn on Moon
Limited respectively on 2nd and 6 th July 2010, paragraph 8 is
denied.

5. Save that the Shares were subsequently sold by Star Limited

pursuant to the arrangement referred to in paragraph 3(5) above,
paragraph 11 is denied.

3.39
 DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

6. The Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 to 5 above.

7. Save that a letter by the Defendant's solicitors dated 7'h July 2011
was received by the Plaintiff, paragraphs 18 to 22 are denied.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[

[name of counsel]
[Counsel for the Plaintiff]

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Reply and Defence to Counterclaim
are true.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[Plaintiff]

3.40
 DCCJ [case no.]/20[

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[ ]

BETWEEN

ASTON MILLER Plaintiff

and

ROSE HOLTS Defendant

REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[

Filed the [date] day of [month] 20[

[name of solicitors firm]

[address of solicitors firm]
[telephone number]
[fax number]
[reference number]

3.41
 Adapted from Legal Practice Manual - Civil Litigation (Rapinet & Leung)

SAMPLE

2. 7 THIRD PARTY NOTICE

HCA [case no.]/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

and

RACCOON DELIVERY CO. LTD. Third Party

THIRD PARTY NOTICE

Issued pursuant to the Order of Master [name] dated the [date] day of
[month] 20[ ].

To the Third Party Raccoon Delivery Co. Ltd. of [registered office address].

TAKE NOTICE that this Action has been brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant. In it, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for the
sum of HK$1,S00,000 being damages for breach of contract, together with

3.42
interest and costs as appears from Writ of Summons, a copy of which is
served on you together with a copy of the Statement of Claim.

The Defendant claims against you for indemnification against the

Plaintiff's claim and the costs of this action or for contribution to the
extent of the Plaintiff's claim in relation to the delivery of 500 jackets on
the grounds that the 500 jackets were delivered in a damaged condition
thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer loss and damage.

AND TAKE NOTICE that within 14 days after service of this Notice on
you, counting the date of service, you must acknowledge service and state
in your Acknowledgement whether you intend to contest the proceedings.
If you fail to do so, or if your Acknowledgement does not state your
intention to contest the proceedings, you will be deemed to admit the
Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant and the Defendant's claim against
you and your liability to indemnify the Defendant or to contribute to the
extent claimed and will be bound by any Judgment or decision given in the
action, and the Judgment may be enforced against you in accordance with
Order 16 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[ ].

[name of firm]
Solicitors for the Defendant
[address]

IMPORTANT

Directions for Acknowledgement of Service are given with the

accompanying form.

3.43
 HCA [case no.]/20[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. [case number] OF 20[

BETWEEN

CIRCLE COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

SQUARE LIMITED Defendant

and

RACCOON DELIVERY CO. LTD. Third Party

THIRD PARTY NOTICE

Dated the [date] day of [month] 20[

Filed the [date] day of [month] 20[

[name of solicitors firm]

[address of solicitors firm]
[telephone number]
[fax number]
[reference number]

3.44
 PRACTICE DIRECTION - 19.1

PLEADINGS

PART I - FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF PLEADINGS PURSUANT 0.18 r.6

1. Any pleading which requires to be served on every other party must, when it is
presented for filing in the High Court Registry, bear the date or dates on which it was
served.

PART II - AMENDMENT OF WRITS AND PLEADINGS

2. In all cases amendments shall be made in the following different colours:

First amendment - Red

Second or re-amendment Green

Third amendment - Violet

Fourth amendment - Yellow

3. In a case where the amendment is not capable of a simple deletion and/or

addition in the appropriate colour, the pleading or other document shall be retyped in
black and the amendment deleted or underlined in the appropriate colour ink.

4. Where amendment is by way of deletion, the deletion must be so effected that the
original wording can still be read without difficulty.

PART III - STRIKING OUT OF PLEADINGS

5. In applications to strike out pleadings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action

or where no letter has been written by counsel for the applicant to counsel for the
respondent signifying his intention to make the application and the broad grounds
upon which he will rely, the applicant shall inform the respondent of the said grounds
in writing at least five clear working days before the day fixed for the hearing.

6. This Practice Direction consolidates and supersedes the Practice Directions now
appearing at pages 2.1, 21.1 and 21.4.

7. This Practice Direction shall take effect on 1 February 1999.

Dated this 31st day of December 1998.

(Andrew Li)

3.45
 PRACTICE DIRECTION - 19.3

STATEM.ENTS OF TRUTH

1. Statement of Damages and Answer to Statement of Damages and any revision thereof are
regarded as pleadings for the purpose of Order 41A and must be verified by a statement of truth.

2. If a document verified by a statement of truth is amended, the previous statement of truth in

respect thereof shall not be deleted. A new statement of truth underlined in the proper colour in
accordance with the version of the amendment shall be made.

3. Notwithstanding a statement of truth of a pleading has been signed by a party or his solicitor
personally, the pleading shall be signed as required under Order 18, rule 6(5).

4. A statement of truth shall either be in English or Chinese and in the language of the statement
maker.

5. In the event that the statement maker cannot understand English or Chinese and translation of
the document containing the statement of truth and the statement of truth is necessary, the
document must also contain a certificate made by the person who translated the same to the
statement maker in the following form:

"I certify that I [name and address of the person] have translated the contents of this
document and the statement of truth to the person signing the statement of truth [if
there are exhibits, add 'and explained the nature and effect of the exhibits referred to
in it'] who appeared to understand (a) the document and approved its content as
accurate and (b) the statement of truth and the consequences of making a false
statement, and made his signature in my presence."

6. In the event that the statement of truth is to be signed by a person who is unable to read, the
document containing the statement of truth must also contain a certificate made by an authorized
person:. in the following form:

"I certify that I [name and address of the authorized person] have read over the
contents of this document and the statement of truth to the person signing the
statement of truth [if there are exhibits, add 'and explained the nature and effect of the
exhibits referred to in it'] who appeared to understand (a) the document and approved
its content as accurate and (b) the statement of truth and the consequences of making
a false statement, and made his [signature I mark] in my presence."

7. This Practice Direction shall come into effect on 2 April 2009.

3.46
:_ A person able to administer oaths and take affidavits but need not be independent of the parties
or their representatives.

Dated this 12th of February 2009.

(Andrew Li)
Chief Justice

3.47