FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS

FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS

Where solicitors/parties fail to file and serve the Timetabling Questionnaire and required Mediation Certificate in accordance with the Civil Justice Reform, Order 25 and Practice Directions, the Court will generally refuse to hear the Case Management Summons, adjourn the hearing and may disallow costs between parties and their clients and impose case management consequences (including barring expert evidence for default).

Citation
FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Faith Bright Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Ng Kwok Kuen; 2nd Defendant: Ng Kwok Cheung; 3rd Defendant: Ng Hon Chung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 October 2010
Case Number
HCA9058/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case Management Summons (order 25 Rhc) / Case Management Summons Hearing / Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Case Management Summons adjourned; Court declined to proceed with hearing in the absence of filed Timetabling Questionnaire and Mediation Certificate; admonition to parties and solicitors to comply with CJR and Practice Directions
Legal Topics
Timetabling Questionnaire, Practice Direction 5.2, Practice Direction 31 (mediation Certificates), Order 25 RHC, Expert Evidence Directions, Adjournment and Costs, Security for Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Case Management Civil Justice Reform Evidence Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Timetabling Questionnaire Practice Direction 5.2 Practice Direction 31 (mediation Certificates) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faith Bright Development Limited

Plaintiff

Ng Kwok Kuen

1st Defendant

Ng Kwok Cheung

2nd Defendant

Ng Hon Chung

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case Management Summons (order 25 Rhc) / Case Management Summons Hearing / Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should entertain a Case Management Summons where parties/solicitors have not filed and served the Timetabling Questionnaire as required by Order 25 and Practice Direction 5.2
  2. 2 Whether Mediation Certificates must be filed under Practice Direction 31 and the consequence of non‑compliance
  3. 3 Proper approach to management of expert evidence and consequences of non‑compliance with expert directions

Ratio Decidendi

Where solicitors/parties fail to file and serve the Timetabling Questionnaire and required Mediation Certificate in accordance with the Civil Justice Reform, Order 25 and Practice Directions, the Court will generally refuse to hear the Case Management Summons, adjourn the hearing and may disallow costs between parties and their clients and impose case management consequences (including barring expert evidence for default).

Court Disposition

Case Management Summons adjourned; Court declined to proceed with hearing in the absence of filed Timetabling Questionnaire and Mediation Certificate; admonition to parties and solicitors to comply with CJR and Practice Directions

Orders

  • Case Management Summons adjourned to another date
  • No order as to costs between the parties or from their respective clients (costs disallowed)