CHAN CHEUNG PO v. KWAN KAY CHEONG AND ANOTHER

CHAN CHEUNG PO v. KWAN KAY CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Judge admitted items 1–6: explanation for late discovery (counsel's mistake and affidavit) accepted; documents relevant and consistent with existing evidence; defendants did not demonstrate specific prejudice from late disclosure and makers were dead or unavailable so earlier disclosure would likely not have changed preparation; therefore exclusion under s47(1)(b) was not warranted though weight and costs remain open.

Citation
CHAN CHEUNG PO v. KWAN KAY CHEONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Hong Lok School Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Kwan Ko Siu Wah; 1st Defendant: Chow Sai Yiu; 2nd Defendant: Chan Cheung Po
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2003
Case Number
HCA19001/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (trial on Admissibility of Late Disclosed Documents) / Trial (ruling on Supplemental Discovery and Admissibility)
Outcome
Plaintiffs allowed to rely on items 1–6 of the Supplemental List; items admitted for the purposes of the ongoing trial
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Late Disclosure of Documents, Admissibility, Hearsay Notice, Prejudice and Interests of Justice, Weight and Costs
Source Language
EN
Evidence Civil Procedure Discovery Hearsay Late Disclosure of Documents Admissibility Hearsay Notice Prejudice and Interests of Justice +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Lok School Limited

1st Plaintiff

Kwan Ko Siu Wah

2nd Plaintiff

Chow Sai Yiu

1st Defendant

Chan Cheung Po

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (trial on Admissibility of Late Disclosed Documents) / Trial (ruling on Supplemental Discovery and Admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs may rely on items 1–6 of a supplemental list of documents disclosed shortly before trial
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve hearsay notice under s47A(2) affects admissibility and/or costs/weight
  3. 3 Whether exclusion under s47(1)(b) is appropriate given alleged prejudice from late disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Judge admitted items 1–6: explanation for late discovery (counsel's mistake and affidavit) accepted; documents relevant and consistent with existing evidence; defendants did not demonstrate specific prejudice from late disclosure and makers were dead or unavailable so earlier disclosure would likely not have changed preparation; therefore exclusion under s47(1)(b) was not warranted though weight and costs remain open.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs allowed to rely on items 1–6 of the Supplemental List; items admitted for the purposes of the ongoing trial

Orders

  • Items 1–6 of the Plaintiffs' Supplemental List of Documents dated 28 June 2003 are admissible and the Plaintiffs may rely on them at trial