LIU HON WONG AND OTHERS v. LIU CHEE KWAN AND ANOTHER
All three applications were dismissed because they were last-minute, lacked adequate explanatory affidavit evidence, departed from earlier confirmations in the plaintiffs' listing questionnaire that pleadings and discovery were complete, and would cause prejudice and real risk of derailing or prolonging the fixed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 3157
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: LIU HON WONG (廖漢旺); 2nd Plaintiff: LIU TSE WAH alias EDMUND TSE WAH LIU (廖滋華); 3rd Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Liu Hon Kee Evan, Deceased): LIU TSE WAH alias EDMUND TSE WAH LIU (廖滋華), administrator of the estate of LIU HON KEE EVAN alias LIU HON KEE alias EVAN HON-KEE LIU, deceased; 1st Defendant: LIU CHEE KWAN (廖滋鈞); 2nd Defendant: LIU WAI MAN (廖惠民)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2022
- Case Number
- HCA953/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Fiduciary and Property Dispute / Pre Trial Review (interlocutory)
- Outcome
- All three summonses dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Late Pre Trial Applications, Eshelby Rule and Post Writ Amendments, Video Conferencing Evidence, Costs (indemnity)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LIU HON WONG (廖漢旺)
1st Plaintiff
LIU TSE WAH alias EDMUND TSE WAH LIU (廖滋華)
2nd Plaintiff
LIU TSE WAH alias EDMUND TSE WAH LIU (廖滋華), administrator of the estate of LIU HON KEE EVAN alias LIU HON KEE alias EVAN HON-KEE LIU, deceased
3rd Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Liu Hon Kee Evan, Deceased)
LIU CHEE KWAN (廖滋鈞)
1st Defendant
LIU WAI MAN (廖惠民)
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Fiduciary and Property Dispute / Pre Trial Review (interlocutory)
Legal Issues
- 1 whether to allow re-amendment of the Amended Statement of Claim to plead post-writ lease periods and market rent particulars
- 2 whether to permit late discovery by filing 4th and 5th Supplemental Lists of Documents
- 3 whether to allow an important witness to give evidence by Video-Conferencing Facilities (VCF)
Ratio Decidendi
All three applications were dismissed because they were last-minute, lacked adequate explanatory affidavit evidence, departed from earlier confirmations in the plaintiffs' listing questionnaire that pleadings and discovery were complete, and would cause prejudice and real risk of derailing or prolonging the fixed trial. The absence of satisfactory justification for delay and the significant prejudice to defendants warranted refusal of amendment and late discovery; absence of direct evidence from the witness and his importance meant VCF was not justified. Indemnity costs were ordered against plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
All three summonses dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed
Orders
- The Amendment Summons (leave to re-amend pleadings) is dismissed
- The Discovery Summons (leave to file 4th and 5th SLOD) is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment