GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

The appeal and the two New Evidence Summonses were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was not necessary or sufficiently probative: the issues were primarily contractual construction and ascertainable facts or speculative contingent liabilities; the Ladd v Marshall requirements for new evidence on appeal were not met; admitting the evidence would cause unnecessary complication and waste; accordingly leave to adduce the expert evidence was refused and costs awarded to the successful parties.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 870
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Giant Harvest Limited; 1st Defendant (original Action): Nan Hai Corporation Limited; 2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): True Vision Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment (Holdings) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Case Number
HCA2632/2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal Under Order 58 (de Novo Hearing) / Appeal Heard in Chambers on Amended Summons and Two New Evidence Summonses
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; both New Evidence Summonses dismissed; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with certificate for two counsel.
Legal Topics
Admission of Expert Evidence, Order 58 Appeals, Ladd V Marshall Test for New Evidence, Contract Interpretation of SPA and Confirmation Letter, Assessment of Costs and Certificate for Two Counsel
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Taxation (mainland China) Property Valuation Regulatory Compliance (fire and Safety) Admission of Expert Evidence Order 58 Appeals +3 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giant Harvest Limited

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

Nan Hai Corporation Limited

1st Defendant (original Action)

True Vision Limited

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

Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment (Holdings) Limited

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal Under Order 58 (de Novo Hearing) / Appeal Heard in Chambers on Amended Summons and Two New Evidence Summonses

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 the two New Evidence Summonses were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was not necessary or sufficiently probative: the issues were primarily contractual construction and ascertainable facts or speculative contingent liabilities; the Ladd v Marshall requirements for new evidence on appeal were not met; admitting the evidence would cause unnecessary complication and waste; accordingly leave to adduce the expert evidence was refused and costs awarded to the successful parties.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Both summonses for leave to adduce new evidence dismissed