CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

Paragraph 6 of Mr To's witness statement was factual evidence by the auditor explaining actions in the course of auditing and not expert opinion requiring prior leave; the court therefore admitted the paragraph. The court granted extension to file the Notice of Non-admission but ordered that the plaintiffs bear the costs occasioned by that extension; hearing costs were assessed at HKD 90,000 payable by the plaintiffs within 28 days.

Citation
CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHUNG PUI TAK; 2nd Plaintiff: FINE GROUP PAPER PRODUCT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN; 2nd Defendant: BEST TRI PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: FINE GROUP TRADING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 March 2016
Case Number
HCA1439/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust, Fiduciary and Contractual Disputes / Interlocutory Applications in Chambers Concerning Evidence Admissibility and Extension of Time
Outcome
1st summons dismissed; 2nd summons (extension of time) granted subject to costs
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence Admissibility, Notice of Non Admission, Extension of Time, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Trusts Fiduciary Duty Evidence Law Expert Evidence Admissibility Notice of Non Admission Extension of Time Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUNG PUI TAK

1st Plaintiff

FINE GROUP PAPER PRODUCT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN

1st Defendant

BEST TRI PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

FINE GROUP TRADING LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust, Fiduciary and Contractual Disputes / Interlocutory Applications in Chambers Concerning Evidence Admissibility and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 6 of auditor To Wai Chung's witness statement constitutes inadmissible expert opinion evidence
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to extension of time to file Notice of Non-admission under Order 27 r.4 and on what terms
  3. 3 Whether costs of the extension application should be borne by the plaintiffs and the amount

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6 of Mr To's witness statement was factual evidence by the auditor explaining actions in the course of auditing and not expert opinion requiring prior leave; the court therefore admitted the paragraph. The court granted extension to file the Notice of Non-admission but ordered that the plaintiffs bear the costs occasioned by that extension; hearing costs were assessed at HKD 90,000 payable by the plaintiffs within 28 days.

Court Disposition

1st summons dismissed; 2nd summons (extension of time) granted subject to costs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs\u2019 1st summons be dismissed
  • Time be extended to the plaintiffs to file and serve the Notice of Non-admission under Order 27 r.4(2) RHC within 7 days from the date hereof and the defendants be at liberty to apply for leave to serve supplemental witness statement to explain the provenance of the Copy Deposit Form within 14 days thereafter