CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS
The summons was dismissed because the supplemental witness statement was hopelessly late without a full and frank explanation, effectively sought to introduce expert opinion by a partisan factual witness outside the expert directions, and the failure to seek timely expert directions and comply with case management justified exclusion to protect trial management and fairness; costs were awarded against the applicant.
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 278
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff (in Liquidation): China Medical Technologies, Inc; 2nd Plaintiff: CMED Technologies Ltd; 3rd Plaintiffs in Their Capacity as the Joint and Several Liquidators of China Medical Technologies, Inc (in Liquidation): Cosimo Borrelli and Yuen Lai Yee; 1st Defendant: Wu Xiaodong; 2nd Defendant: Samson Tsang Tak Yung; 3rd Defendant (applicant): Chen Zhong; 4th Defendant: Zhu Feng (Charles); 5th Defendant (in His Personal Capacity and Formerly Trading as Kam Hing Trading Co): Chong Wing Hip; 6th Defendant: Hao Xiaoqing Allan; 7th Defendant: Supreme Well Investments Limited; 8th Defendant: East Hope International Limited; 9th Defendant: Cheer Link International Limited; 10th Defendant: Innovative Technology Investment Limited; 11th Defendant: Dynamic Sense Limited; 12th Defendant: Time Region Holdings Limited; 13th Defendant (in Her Personal Capacity and as Trustee of the Xiao Qiong Bi Trust and the Alisa Wu Irrevocable Trust): Bi Xiaoqiong; 14th Defendant: Worldpro Investments Limited; 15th Defendant: Long Chart Investments Limited; 16th Defendant: Chavis Investments Limited; 17th Defendant: Sinowell International Investment Limited; 18th Defendant: Chengxuan International Ltd; 19th Defendant: Weixiao Medical Technology Limited; 20th Defendant: WB International Holding Pte Ltd; 21st Defendant: Max Prosper Enterprises Limited; 22nd Defendant: Jun Yun Bi; 23rd Defendant: Global Flash Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2024
- Case Number
- HCA1417/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Commercial Fraud and Insolvency (liquidation) Proceedings / Second Case Management Conference; Interlocutory Summons for Leave to File Supplemental Witness Statement Determined
- Outcome
- D3's Summons dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Expert Evidence, Witness Statements, Late Applications, Case Management, Valuation, Discovery, Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
China Medical Technologies, Inc
1st Plaintiff (in Liquidation)
CMED Technologies Ltd
2nd Plaintiff
Cosimo Borrelli and Yuen Lai Yee
3rd Plaintiffs in Their Capacity as the Joint and Several Liquidators of China Medical Technologies, Inc (in Liquidation)
Wu Xiaodong
1st Defendant
Samson Tsang Tak Yung
2nd Defendant
Chen Zhong
3rd Defendant (applicant)
Zhu Feng (Charles)
4th Defendant
Chong Wing Hip
5th Defendant (in His Personal Capacity and Formerly Trading as Kam Hing Trading Co)
Hao Xiaoqing Allan
6th Defendant
Supreme Well Investments Limited
7th Defendant
East Hope International Limited
8th Defendant
Cheer Link International Limited
9th Defendant
Innovative Technology Investment Limited
10th Defendant
Dynamic Sense Limited
11th Defendant
Time Region Holdings Limited
12th Defendant
Bi Xiaoqiong
13th Defendant (in Her Personal Capacity and as Trustee of the Xiao Qiong Bi Trust and the Alisa Wu Irrevocable Trust)
Worldpro Investments Limited
14th Defendant
Long Chart Investments Limited
15th Defendant
Chavis Investments Limited
16th Defendant
Sinowell International Investment Limited
17th Defendant
Chengxuan International Ltd
18th Defendant
Weixiao Medical Technology Limited
19th Defendant
WB International Holding Pte Ltd
20th Defendant
Max Prosper Enterprises Limited
21st Defendant
Jun Yun Bi
22nd Defendant
Global Flash Limited
23rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud and Insolvency (liquidation) Proceedings / Second Case Management Conference; Interlocutory Summons for Leave to File Supplemental Witness Statement Determined
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a late supplemental witness statement that contains or effectively advances expert opinion should be permitted
- 2 Whether a factual witness (and party) may give opinion evidence on technical matters and to what extent
- 3 Whether unexplained or inordinate delay justifies dismissal of an interlocutory application
Ratio Decidendi
The summons was dismissed because the supplemental witness statement was hopelessly late without a full and frank explanation, effectively sought to introduce expert opinion by a partisan factual witness outside the expert directions, and the failure to seek timely expert directions and comply with case management justified exclusion to protect trial management and fairness; costs were awarded against the applicant.
Court Disposition
D3's Summons dismissed
Orders
- D3's Summons dismissed
- Costs of D3's Summons to the Plaintiffs, to be taxed on a party and party basis, paid by the 3rd Defendant forthwith
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