TANG PING KWAN v. TANG KAI TUNG

TANG PING KWAN v. TANG KAI TUNG

Leave to file the five draft affirmations was properly refused because the proposed affirmations contained substantial material beyond what could be regarded as reply to the defendant's affirmation, the plaintiff failed to explain why the evidence had not been put forward earlier, and large parts of the material were irrelevant to the prejudice issue.

Citation
TANG PING KWAN v. TANG KAI TUNG
Parties
Plaintiff (deceased): Tang Ping Kwan; Plaintiff (personal Representative of the Estate of Tang Ping Kwan): Tang Wai Lun; Defendant (manager of Tang Yuk Cho Tso): Tang Kai Tung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2010
Case Number
HCA1705/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Appeal From Master Levy's Order Dismissing Summons for Leave to File Evidence in Reply
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of Master Levy upheld.
Legal Topics
Failure to Prosecute, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Leave to Adduce Evidence in Reply, Prejudice to Fair Trial, Admissibility and Relevance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Evidence Failure to Prosecute Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Leave to Adduce Evidence in Reply Prejudice to Fair Trial Admissibility and Relevance

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Ping Kwan

Plaintiff (deceased)

Tang Wai Lun

Plaintiff (personal Representative of the Estate of Tang Ping Kwan)

Tang Kai Tung

Defendant (manager of Tang Yuk Cho Tso)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Appeal From Master Levy's Order Dismissing Summons for Leave to File Evidence in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file further affirmations in reply to the defendant's affirmation
  2. 2 Whether the proposed evidence is strictly in reply or introduces new matters
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has explained the delay in adducing the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the five draft affirmations was properly refused because the proposed affirmations contained substantial material beyond what could be regarded as reply to the defendant's affirmation, the plaintiff failed to explain why the evidence had not been put forward earlier, and large parts of the material were irrelevant to the prejudice issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of Master Levy upheld.

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal dismissed with costs to the Defendant
  • Leave to file the five draft affirmations refused; leave to make a further restricted application left open without encouragement