ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER

ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER

The plaintiffs were guilty of substantial unexplained delay in seeking to adduce a China law opinion shortly before a fixed four‑day retrial; admitting the opinion would prejudice the defendant and require adjournment; therefore the court properly refused to exercise its discretion to admit the opinion and dismissed the plaintiffs' summons with costs to the 1st Defendant to be taxed.

Citation
ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ZHANG RUI HUA (張瑞華); 2nd Plaintiff: PU CHUAN YAO (普傳耀) by PU JUN (普峻); 1st Defendant: WANG LAN (王蘭); 2nd Defendant: PU JUAN (普娟)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Case Number
HCAP13/2010
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Retrial Interlocutory Application to Adduce China Law Opinion
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons dated 22 March 2017 dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Admission of Expert Evidence, Delay and Prejudice, Adjournment, Costs Taxation, Foreign Legal Opinion (china Law)
Source Language
EN
Probate Civil Procedure Evidence Conflict of Laws Admission of Expert Evidence Delay and Prejudice Adjournment Costs Taxation +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZHANG RUI HUA (張瑞華)

1st Plaintiff

PU CHUAN YAO (普傳耀) by PU JUN (普峻)

2nd Plaintiff

WANG LAN (王蘭)

1st Defendant

PU JUAN (普娟)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Retrial Interlocutory Application to Adduce China Law Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to adduce a legal opinion on China law at retrial
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' delay in seeking to adduce the opinion justified refusal
  3. 3 Whether admission would require adjournment and cause prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were guilty of substantial unexplained delay in seeking to adduce a China law opinion shortly before a fixed four‑day retrial; admitting the opinion would prejudice the defendant and require adjournment; therefore the court properly refused to exercise its discretion to admit the opinion and dismissed the plaintiffs' summons with costs to the 1st Defendant to be taxed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons dated 22 March 2017 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' summons dated 22 March 2017 is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to the 1st Defendant to be taxed if not agreed (with certificate of counsel).