YIU WAH v. SEMK INDUSTRIAL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

YIU WAH v. SEMK INDUSTRIAL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

The court exercised its discretion to refuse admission of the two late witness statements because the explanations for delay were unsatisfactory, admission would prejudice the scheduled trial and disrupt the timetable, and the terms offered by the applicants were inadequate; accordingly the trial should proceed without the new statements.

Citation
YIU WAH v. SEMK INDUSTRIAL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Yiu Wah; Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Semk Industrial (Holdings) Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Semk Electrical (International) Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Yiu's Investment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2007
Case Number
HCA3847/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action With Counterclaim / Further Directions Hearing Before Trial (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to admit two late witness statements refused; trial to proceed as scheduled without those statements; costs awarded to respondents payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Directions, Admission of Late Witness Statements, Adjournment, Costs, Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Commercial Company Law Evidence and Procedure Pre Trial Directions Admission of Late Witness Statements Adjournment Costs +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yiu Wah

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

Semk Industrial (Holdings) Company Limited

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

Semk Electrical (International) Limited

2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Yiu's Investment Limited

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action With Counterclaim / Further Directions Hearing Before Trial (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two late witness statements should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the trial should be adjourned to allow new evidence
  3. 3 Sufficiency of the explanation for late disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse admission of the two late witness statements because the explanations for delay were unsatisfactory, admission would prejudice the scheduled trial and disrupt the timetable, and the terms offered by the applicants were inadequate; accordingly the trial should proceed without the new statements.

Court Disposition

Application to admit two late witness statements refused; trial to proceed as scheduled without those statements; costs awarded to respondents payable forthwith.

Orders

  • Refuse admission of the two disputed witness statements of Mr Tse and Miss Chan
  • Admit Mr Chow's witness statement (not objected to)