IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
HIGH COURT ACTION NO. 342 OF 2013
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers
Date of Hearing and decision: 13 August 2014
D E C I S I O N
1. Decision in respect of the plaintiff’s application to strike out and the defendant’s application to amend parts of the defencewas handed down yesterday afternoon. This morning, the plaintiff’s solicitors appeared with notice to the defendant’s solicitors,who were present but had no instruction to formally appear.
2. The relevant parts of the defence and draft amended defence were appended to the decision for easy reference only. The plaintiff’s solicitors now expressed concern about part of the draft amended defence, which was notpursued but, as appended, would be published. I could understand why. Proposal was made to address that, which will only complicatethe matter and lead to further costs.
3. The decision is in all respects self-contained and refers to the relevant parts of the existing pleading and all the proposed amendments. As the relevant parts of the pleadings were appended to the decision merely for easy reference, the concern of the plaintiff couldbe addressed simply by their removal prior to publication. The completeness and integrity of the decision is not affected in anyway whatsoever.
4. Whilst the defendant has the right to be heard, I consider that further complication and costs because of a matter like this shouldand could be avoided as well as with ease. I therefore directed that appendix I and II and the last sentence of paragraph 10 ofthe decision shall be removed prior to publication of the decision.
Mr John ROSE of Messrs Deacons for the plaintiff
 Last sentence of §10 of the decision merely referring to the inclusion of the appendix