LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG CHI WAH AND ANOTHER

LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG CHI WAH AND ANOTHER

Retrospective leave granted because the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, the supplemental documents were served well before trial and were largely public records or party communications that the defendants could not reasonably say were surprising, the documents were relevant to disputed facts and credibility, admission did not require amendment of pleadings or further witness statements, and defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice from admission.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 624
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR COMPANY LIMITED (聯明精裝有限公司); 2nd Plaintiff: UY MARIA LUISA GALVEZ (韋樂怡); 1st Defendant: NG CHI WAH (吳誌華); 2nd Defendant: SHUN SING HOLDINGS LIMITED (信成控股有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2020
Case Number
HCA2593/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial (commercial/contract) / Pre Trial Review (2nd Ptr); Interlocutory Application for Retrospective Leave to File Supplemental List of Documents
Outcome
Summons granted; plaintiffs given retrospective leave to file Supplemental List; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the summons.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Disclosure/discovery, Retrospective Leave to File Documents, Supplemental List of Documents, Pre Trial Directions
Source Language
EN

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

Parties

LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR COMPANY LIMITED (聯明精裝有限公司)

1st Plaintiff

UY MARIA LUISA GALVEZ (韋樂怡)

2nd Plaintiff

NG CHI WAH (吳誌華)

1st Defendant

SHUN SING HOLDINGS LIMITED (信成控股有限公司)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial (commercial/contract) / Pre Trial Review (2nd Ptr); Interlocutory Application for Retrospective Leave to File Supplemental List of Documents

  1. 1 Whether retrospective leave should be granted for late filing of a supplemental list of documents (lateness vs prejudice vs relevance)
  2. 2 Whether the newly disclosed documents are relevant and admissible
  3. 3 Whether any prejudice to the defendants justifies refusal of retrospective disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Retrospective leave granted because the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, the supplemental documents were served well before trial and were largely public records or party communications that the defendants could not reasonably say were surprising, the documents were relevant to disputed facts and credibility, admission did not require amendment of pleadings or further witness statements, and defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice from admission.

Court Disposition

Summons granted; plaintiffs given retrospective leave to file Supplemental List; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the summons.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs granted retrospective leave to file and serve the Supplemental List of Documents dated 3 December 2019.
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of and occasioned by the Summons.