ORIENT POWER HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG

ORIENT POWER HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG

Application dismissed because there was substantial unexplained delay from the court-ordered exchange date, the plaintiffs' and SCB's prior decision not to call the witness was not a good reason for late admission, admission would cause prejudice and likely disruption requiring third-party discovery from SCB, and fairness and CJR principles weigh against allowing the late evidence.

Citation
ORIENT POWER HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG
Parties
1st Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation): Orient Power Holdings Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation): Orient Power Electronics Limited; 3rd Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation): Orient Power Car Stereos Limited; 4th Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation): Orient Power Video Manufacturing Limited; Defendant: Ernst & Young
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Case Number
HCCL14/2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action No 14 of 2014 / Interlocutory (chambers) Decision on Plaintiffs' Late Application for Leave to Serve a Witness Statement Before a Fixed Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application to serve the late witness statement dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Late Witness Evidence, Discovery From Third Party (peruvian Guano), Prejudice and Trial Disruption, Civil Justice Reform Principles, Costs and Certification for Counsel
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Professional Negligence (audit) Commercial Law Insolvency/receivership Leave to Adduce Late Witness Evidence Discovery From Third Party (peruvian Guano) Prejudice and Trial Disruption +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orient Power Holdings Limited

1st Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation)

Orient Power Electronics Limited

2nd Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation)

Orient Power Car Stereos Limited

3rd Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation)

Orient Power Video Manufacturing Limited

4th Plaintiff (receivers and Managers Appointed; in Liquidation)

Ernst & Young

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action No 14 of 2014 / Interlocutory (chambers) Decision on Plaintiffs' Late Application for Leave to Serve a Witness Statement Before a Fixed Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to serve a late witness statement of Mr Isherwood
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have given good reason for the delay from the court-ordered exchange date
  3. 3 Whether admitting the late evidence would cause prejudice and disruption to the defendant and trial preparation

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because there was substantial unexplained delay from the court-ordered exchange date, the plaintiffs' and SCB's prior decision not to call the witness was not a good reason for late admission, admission would cause prejudice and likely disruption requiring third-party discovery from SCB, and fairness and CJR principles weigh against allowing the late evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application to serve the late witness statement dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to the defendant