LO WO AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG CHAN KA JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

LO WO AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG CHAN KA JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

The March 1995 valuation report was too temporally remote from the July 1993 agreement that gave rise to the market value dispute and therefore was not relevant and should not be admitted; deficiencies in disclosed basis would affect weight not admissibility, but that did not remedy the lack of relevance, so leave to adduce the report was refused.

Citation
LO WO AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG CHAN KA JOSEPH AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LO WO; 2nd Plaintiff: LO TAI; 3rd Plaintiff: LO LAN; 1st Defendant: CHEUNG CHAN KA, JOSEPH; 2nd Defendant: BOND STAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 1999
Case Number
HCA618/1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application for leave to adduce the March 1995 valuation report by the 2nd Defendant refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility, Relevance, Valuation Reports, Market Value Determination
Source Language
EN
Evidence Civil Procedure Property Law Expert Evidence Admissibility Relevance Valuation Reports Market Value Determination

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LO WO

1st Plaintiff

LO TAI

2nd Plaintiff

LO LAN

3rd Plaintiff

CHEUNG CHAN KA, JOSEPH

1st Defendant

BOND STAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce a March 1995 valuation report for determination of market value at July 1993 agreement date
  2. 2 Whether the date difference renders the expert report irrelevant
  3. 3 Whether lack of disclosed comparables or basis in the report affects admissibility or weight

Ratio Decidendi

The March 1995 valuation report was too temporally remote from the July 1993 agreement that gave rise to the market value dispute and therefore was not relevant and should not be admitted; deficiencies in disclosed basis would affect weight not admissibility, but that did not remedy the lack of relevance, so leave to adduce the report was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to adduce the March 1995 valuation report by the 2nd Defendant refused.

Orders

  • Leave to adduce the valuation report of Larry Tam & Associates dated March 1995 is refused.