HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Tribunal was aware of the disciplinary Charge and related materials at final submissions and had considered them; under s.10(6) LTO it could admit and weigh the material; the Charge prior to conviction did not automatically 'qualify' or negate professional status; the Tribunal properly assessed the effect of non-disclosure on the expert's opinion; the matter was not appropriate for the Court of Appeal to lay down general principles in the Lands Tribunal context.

Citation
HARVEST TREASURE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FAT ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicants: 1st to 4th Applicants; Respondent: 1st Respondent; Respondents: 5th to 7th Respondents
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Case Number
LDCS8000/2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Lands Tribunal Sale Order / Leave to Appeal and Stay Applications Refused by Lands Tribunal; Interim Stay Later Granted by Court of Appeal Pending Appeal
Outcome
Lands Tribunal dismissed the 1st Respondent's applications for leave to appeal and stay of execution; costs to follow the event; leave granted to 1st Respondent to use Confidential Documents for the applications/appeal; interim stay later granted by the Court of Appeal pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale, Expert Witness Duty of Disclosure, Leave to Appeal Under S.11 Aa(6) LTO, Admissibility and Weight of Expert Evidence, Disclosure of Disciplinary Charges
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Law Evidence Administrative Law Professional Discipline Compulsory Sale Expert Witness Duty of Disclosure Leave to Appeal Under S.11 Aa(6) LTO +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st to 4th Applicants

Applicants

1st Respondent

Respondent

5th to 7th Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Lands Tribunal Sale Order / Leave to Appeal and Stay Applications Refused by Lands Tribunal; Interim Stay Later Granted by Court of Appeal Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert witness must disclose a disciplinary charge, conviction and/or sentence by his professional body and when that duty arises
  2. 2 Whether deliberate concealment, non-disclosure or late disclosure renders expert evidence inadmissible or of no weight
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.11AA(6) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Tribunal was aware of the disciplinary Charge and related materials at final submissions and had considered them; under s.10(6) LTO it could admit and weigh the material; the Charge prior to conviction did not automatically 'qualify' or negate professional status; the Tribunal properly assessed the effect of non-disclosure on the expert's opinion; the matter was not appropriate for the Court of Appeal to lay down general principles in the Lands Tribunal context.

Court Disposition

Lands Tribunal dismissed the 1st Respondent's applications for leave to appeal and stay of execution; costs to follow the event; leave granted to 1st Respondent to use Confidential Documents for the applications/appeal; interim stay later granted by the Court of Appeal pending appeal.

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal and stay of execution dismissed by the Lands Tribunal
  • Costs to follow the event, to be taxed at High Court scale if not agreed