LAU WING HONG AND OTHERS v. WONG WOR HUNG AND ANOTHER

LAU WING HONG AND OTHERS v. WONG WOR HUNG AND ANOTHER

The judge allowed the recall because the proposed evidence was relevant, arose directly from the 2nd Defendant's evidence about the temporary fence, was narrow and confined, and its admissibility served the interests of justice; any concerns about validity or weight of the plans go to weight and cross-examination, not admissibility.

Citation
LAU WING HONG AND OTHERS v. WONG WOR HUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LAU WING HONG; 2nd Plaintiff: LAU KOON HAY; 3rd Plaintiff: LAU KOON LOI; 4th Plaintiff: NAM CHI CHEUNG, RAYMOND; 5th Plaintiff: LAM KWOK CHUEN; 1st Defendant: WONG WOR HUNG; 2nd Defendant: LI WAI KIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 August 2006
Case Number
HCA1454/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (boundary/adverse Possession) / Trial — Mid Trial Evidential Ruling on Recall of Expert (5th Day)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to recall expert Henry Chan allowed (limited to comparison of plans and temporary fence issue)
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Recall of Witness, Boundary Dispute, Survey Plans Comparison, Temporary Fence/evidence of Possession
Source Language
EN
Property Adverse Possession Evidence Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Recall of Witness Boundary Dispute Survey Plans Comparison +1 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU WING HONG

1st Plaintiff

LAU KOON HAY

2nd Plaintiff

LAU KOON LOI

3rd Plaintiff

NAM CHI CHEUNG, RAYMOND

4th Plaintiff

LAM KWOK CHUEN

5th Plaintiff

WONG WOR HUNG

1st Defendant

LI WAI KIN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (boundary/adverse Possession) / Trial — Mid Trial Evidential Ruling on Recall of Expert (5th Day)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow recall of expert surveyor to give comparative evidence on plans A8, C143 and E5
  2. 2 Whether the proposed evidence is relevant and admissible where it arises from the recalled defendant's testimony
  3. 3 Whether late evidence should be excluded as prejudicial or permitted in the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The judge allowed the recall because the proposed evidence was relevant, arose directly from the 2nd Defendant's evidence about the temporary fence, was narrow and confined, and its admissibility served the interests of justice; any concerns about validity or weight of the plans go to weight and cross-examination, not admissibility.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to recall expert Henry Chan allowed (limited to comparison of plans and temporary fence issue)

Orders

  • Recall of Mr Henry Chan permitted limited to giving comparative evidence on plans A8, C143 and E5 in relation to the temporary fence
  • Mr Simon H W Lam may cross-examine Mr Henry Chan on the recalled evidence