 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In Re Chung Wong Kit (A Bankrupt) [1999] 1 HKC 684 at 688, the Court of Appeal
acknowledged the approach in Tse Yuk-tin and, citing Gale v Superdrug Stores plc,
also held that the party resisting the application had the burden of showing that he
would suffer specific prejudice as a result of the admission being withdrawn.
In other words, the Hong Kong courts have approached withdrawals of admissions by
placing first a burden on the applicant to explain why the admission was made and
why it is now sought to resile from it, and, secondly, where a proper explanation is
forthcoming, by allowing withdrawal unless the prejudice which this would cause to
the other party, as established by evidence, makes this course unjust.
The courts are well-equipped to perform such balancing exercises in the exercise of
discretion and we consider the introduction of rules to regulate their approach
unnecessary and undesirable.
Recommendation 18: Provisions along the lines of Part 14 of the CPR should
be adopted in relation to claims for liquidated and unliquidated sums of money
with a view to enabling defendants to propose payment terms (as to time and
instalments) in submitting to entry of judgment by default.
|
 |
|