DUTFIELD INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO LTD v. NINE DRAGON INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

DUTFIELD INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO LTD v. NINE DRAGON INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

O.32 r.11A(4) is confined to situations where a master has given directions for exchange of evidence (or has given such directions and transferred the matter to a judge); it does not apply where a judge in chambers independently adjourns an interlocutory application for hearing and gives directions; accordingly the court's discretion was not constrained by O.32 r.11A(4) and leave was granted to the 1st and 3rd defendants to rely on the 3rd defendant's 2nd affirmation as relevant evidence, with liberty for the plaintiff to file reply evidence within 14 days.

Citation
DUTFIELD INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO LTD v. NINE DRAGON INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: DUTFIELD INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO LTD; 1st Defendant: NINE DRAGON INVESTMENT LTD; 2nd Defendant: GAINCOURT LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: GAO GUNTER; 4th Defendant: LINDA YANG; 5th Defendant: VITAL-GAIN GLOBAL LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2013
Case Number
HCCL11/2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (court of First Instance) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment (o14) and Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Before Hearing
Outcome
Grant of leave to 1st and 3rd defendants to rely on the 3rd defendant's 2nd affirmation at the forthcoming O.14 hearing; plaintiff permitted to file affirmation in reply within 14 days; costs orders nisi made.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Admission of Further Evidence, Order 32 R 11 a, Civil Justice Reform, Natural Justice, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contract Law Guarantee Summary Judgment (order 14) Admission of Further Evidence Order 32 R 11 a Civil Justice Reform +2 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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DUTFIELD INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO LTD

Plaintiff

NINE DRAGON INVESTMENT LTD

1st Defendant

GAINCOURT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

GAO GUNTER

3rd Defendant

LINDA YANG

4th Defendant

VITAL-GAIN GLOBAL LTD

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (court of First Instance) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment (o14) and Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Before Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O.32 r.11A(4) applies to bar further evidence where directions were given by a judge rather than a master
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances existed to admit the 3rd defendant's 2nd affirmation out of the original evidence timetable
  3. 3 Whether refusal to admit the evidence would deny natural justice and the right to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

O.32 r.11A(4) is confined to situations where a master has given directions for exchange of evidence (or has given such directions and transferred the matter to a judge); it does not apply where a judge in chambers independently adjourns an interlocutory application for hearing and gives directions; accordingly the court's discretion was not constrained by O.32 r.11A(4) and leave was granted to the 1st and 3rd defendants to rely on the 3rd defendant's 2nd affirmation as relevant evidence, with liberty for the plaintiff to file reply evidence within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Grant of leave to 1st and 3rd defendants to rely on the 3rd defendant's 2nd affirmation at the forthcoming O.14 hearing; plaintiff permitted to file affirmation in reply within 14 days; costs orders nisi made.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the 1st and 3rd defendants to rely on the 2nd affirmation of the 3rd defendant at the O.14 hearing
  • Plaintiff granted leave to file affirmation evidence in reply, if any, within 14 days