CHIM PUI CHUNG v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

Application dismissed because defendants failed to demonstrate that the proposed expert evidence was necessary to resolve live pleaded issues; pleadings were not sufficiently clear to show the expert evidence would assist the court and the burden to justify leave was not met, making the expert evidence unnecessary and inconsistent with procedural objectives.

Citation
CHIM PUI CHUNG v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Chim Pui Chung; 1st Defendant: Apple Daily Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Kim Hung; 3rd Defendant: Leung Pak Kin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Case Number
HCA1286/2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application (summons) for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Decision on Application
Outcome
Defendants' summons dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff; case management directions given for trial
Legal Topics
Justification Defence, Expert Evidence, Pleadings, Costs, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Defamation Evidence Civil Procedure Justification Defence Expert Evidence Pleadings Costs Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chim Pui Chung

Plaintiff

Apple Daily Limited

1st Defendant

Cheung Kim Hung

2nd Defendant

Leung Pak Kin

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application (summons) for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted leave to adduce expert evidence to support a plea of justification
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert evidence is relevant and necessary to resolve the live issues on the pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings sufficiently identify the issues so that expert evidence is confined to live disputes

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because defendants failed to demonstrate that the proposed expert evidence was necessary to resolve live pleaded issues; pleadings were not sufficiently clear to show the expert evidence would assist the court and the burden to justify leave was not met, making the expert evidence unnecessary and inconsistent with procedural objectives.

Court Disposition

Defendants' summons dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff; case management directions given for trial

Orders

  • Defendants' summons for leave to adduce expert evidence dismissed
  • Costs of the application, including reserved costs and costs of the hearing, assessed at $70,000 to be paid by defendants to the plaintiff within 14 days