GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

Because Kader raised issues in cross‑examination (notably the relevance of 16 C.F.R. §1500.3(c) and the possibility of a CPSC advisory opinion) that were not specifically put to Galco's US law expert, fairness requires allowing an extension for Galco to file a hearsay notice so that its expert may specifically address the points; the application is therefore allowed.

Citation
GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant: GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.; Plaintiff/defendant: KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 1996
Case Number
HCA250/1991
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil (interlocutory Application) / Application for Extension of Time to File Hearsay Notice (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application allowed; order made in terms of the summons dated 15 May 1996.
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Expert Evidence, Extension of Time, Admissibility, Statutory Interpretation (foreign)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Foreign/comparative Law Hearsay Expert Evidence Extension of Time Admissibility Statutory Interpretation (foreign)

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

Plaintiff/defendant

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

Plaintiff/defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil (interlocutory Application) / Application for Extension of Time to File Hearsay Notice (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file a hearsay notice for additional expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether additional hearsay evidence from Galco's US law expert (Mr Locker) should be admitted given points raised in cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether failure to put specific questions at original cross-examination precludes later evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because Kader raised issues in cross‑examination (notably the relevance of 16 C.F.R. §1500.3(c) and the possibility of a CPSC advisory opinion) that were not specifically put to Galco's US law expert, fairness requires allowing an extension for Galco to file a hearsay notice so that its expert may specifically address the points; the application is therefore allowed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; order made in terms of the summons dated 15 May 1996.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted to Galco to file a hearsay notice to admit further evidence from Mr Aaron Locker and Dr Richard Porschen; order in terms of the summons dated 15 May 1996.