ABLE LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. PUBLIC GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

ABLE LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. PUBLIC GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Respondents who chose not to adduce first‑round expert reports cannot use late rebuttal reports as a vehicle to introduce fresh evidence, new tests or engage additional expert disciplines; rebuttal reports are limited to challenging conclusions drawn in applicants' reports. Accordingly leave was granted to file rebuttal reports out of time only on that basis, but respondents were not permitted to conduct further tests on tilting or to include repair cost analyses not disclosed in their first‑round reports.

Citation
ABLE LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. PUBLIC GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: Able Luck Development Limited; 2nd Applicant: Daily Well Creation Limited; 3rd Applicant: Sky Huge Development Limited; 4th Applicant: Wise Million Limited; 5th Applicant: Fuji Properties Limited; 6th Applicant: Kellex Industries Limited; 7th Applicant: Lam Wai Ying; 8th Applicant: Homford Development Limited; 9th Applicant: Spread Capital Limited; 1st Respondent: Public Global Investments Limited; 2nd Respondent (discontinued): Century Development (HK) Limited; 3rd Respondent (discontinued): Top Speed International Holdings Limited; 4th Respondent (discontinued): Jetfair Enterprises Limited; 5th Respondent: Wong Yu Sum and Leung Yuet Ming; 6th Respondent: Yat Shun Hong Company Limited; 7th Respondent: Sze Shau Fong and Tam Hoi Lam; 8th Respondent: Wong Pak Leung and Chin Yuk Ling; 9th Respondent: Treasure Lounge Limited; 10th Respondent: Kok Yick and So Kam Lan; 11th Respondent: Kok Yick; 12th Respondent: Wong Kai Chun; 13th Respondent (discontinued): The Incorporated Owners of Yip Fat Factory Building Phase 2; 14th Respondent: Billion Chemical (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Case Number
LDCS7000/2014
Procedural Posture
Land Compulsory Sale Main Application / Directions / Summons Hearing and Pre Trial Review (reasons for Decision on Summons for Extension of Time)
Outcome
Summons granted in part; limited leave to file rebuttal reports out of time subject to restrictions on scope
Legal Topics
Compulsory Sale, Expert Evidence, Rebuttal Reports, Scope of Expert Evidence, Timetabling and Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Construction and Engineering Valuation Compulsory Sale Expert Evidence Rebuttal Reports Scope of Expert Evidence +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Able Luck Development Limited

1st Applicant

Daily Well Creation Limited

2nd Applicant

Sky Huge Development Limited

3rd Applicant

Wise Million Limited

4th Applicant

Fuji Properties Limited

5th Applicant

Kellex Industries Limited

6th Applicant

Lam Wai Ying

7th Applicant

Homford Development Limited

8th Applicant

Spread Capital Limited

9th Applicant

Public Global Investments Limited

1st Respondent

Century Development (HK) Limited

2nd Respondent (discontinued)

Top Speed International Holdings Limited

3rd Respondent (discontinued)

Jetfair Enterprises Limited

4th Respondent (discontinued)

Wong Yu Sum and Leung Yuet Ming

5th Respondent

Yat Shun Hong Company Limited

6th Respondent

Sze Shau Fong and Tam Hoi Lam

7th Respondent

Wong Pak Leung and Chin Yuk Ling

8th Respondent

Treasure Lounge Limited

9th Respondent

Kok Yick and So Kam Lan

10th Respondent

Kok Yick

11th Respondent

Wong Kai Chun

12th Respondent

The Incorporated Owners of Yip Fat Factory Building Phase 2

13th Respondent (discontinued)

Billion Chemical (Hong Kong) Limited

14th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Compulsory Sale Main Application / Directions / Summons Hearing and Pre Trial Review (reasons for Decision on Summons for Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents may file rebuttal expert reports out of time
  2. 2 Whether rebuttal expert reports may introduce new tests or engage additional experts
  3. 3 Whether a land surveyor may be engaged to verify alleged tilting in rebuttal evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents who chose not to adduce first‑round expert reports cannot use late rebuttal reports as a vehicle to introduce fresh evidence, new tests or engage additional expert disciplines; rebuttal reports are limited to challenging conclusions drawn in applicants' reports. Accordingly leave was granted to file rebuttal reports out of time only on that basis, but respondents were not permitted to conduct further tests on tilting or to include repair cost analyses not disclosed in their first‑round reports.

Court Disposition

Summons granted in part; limited leave to file rebuttal reports out of time subject to restrictions on scope

Orders

  • Leave granted for the 5th to 12th and 14th respondents to file and serve rebuttal reports out of time
  • Respondents to file and serve the rebuttal valuation report on or before 14 September 2016 in line with Lai's letter dated 26 August 2016