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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether retrospective leave should be granted for late filing of a supplemental list of documents (lateness vs prejudice vs relevance)
- 2 Whether the newly disclosed documents are relevant and admissible
- 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.
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