GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

The appeal and applications to adduce new expert evidence were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary or did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold; the tax issue did not justify withholding the Settlement Sum given the contractual allocation in Clause 8 and factual circumstances; valuation and fire/safety issues could be resolved without the proposed experts or were irrelevant on the agreed contract terms; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with certificate for two counsel.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 870
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Giant Harvest Limited (鉅滿有限公司); 1st Defendant (original Action): Nan Hai Corporation Limited (南海控股有限公司); 2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): True Vision Limited (美視角有限公司); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment (Holdings) Limited (橙天嘉禾娛樂(集團)有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Case Number
HCA2072/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Order 58 (consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Dismissal of Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Hearing and Decision in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; both New Evidence Summonses dismissed; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with a certificate for two counsel
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Ladd V Marshall Criteria, Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Withholding of Contractual Payments, Business Valuation (box Office), Costs and Certificates for Counsel
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Tax Law (mainland China) Valuation Law Regulatory Compliance (fire and Safety) Admissibility of Expert Evidence Ladd V Marshall Criteria +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giant Harvest Limited (鉅滿有限公司)

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Nan Hai Corporation Limited (南海控股有限公司)

1st Defendant (original Action)

True Vision Limited (美視角有限公司)

2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment (Holdings) Limited (橙天嘉禾娛樂(集團)有限公司)

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Order 58 (consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Dismissal of Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Hearing and Decision in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on Mainland Chinese tax law should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence on valuation of cinema box office revenue should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence on Mainland Chinese fire and safety regulations should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal and applications to adduce new expert evidence were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary or did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold; the tax issue did not justify withholding the Settlement Sum given the contractual allocation in Clause 8 and factual circumstances; valuation and fire/safety issues could be resolved without the proposed experts or were irrelevant on the agreed contract terms; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with certificate for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; both New Evidence Summonses dismissed; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with a certificate for two counsel

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summonses dated 22 February 2021 and 8 March 2021 for leave to adduce new evidence dismissed