K & E REAL ESTATE LTD v. K & E CO LTD

K & E REAL ESTATE LTD v. K & E CO LTD

The adjournment application was refused because it was made too late after lengthy prior exchanges; the discovery sought was largely second‑tier, plaintiffs delayed in raising matters and only recently involved counsel, and the prejudice to the court list and other litigants outweighed grounds for adjournment that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
K & E REAL ESTATE LTD v. K & E CO LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: K & E Estate (China) Limited; 2nd Plaintiff / Plaintiff (dccj 10728/2001): K & E Real Estate Limited; Defendant: K & E Company Limited; 1st Third Party: Shelley To Sing Lui; 2nd Third Party: Thomas Tsoi Hung Chuang
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2004
Case Number
DCCJ10728/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil District Court / Ruling on Application for Adjournment (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Adjournment, Continuing Duty to Disclose, Trial Listing, Prejudice and Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Discovery Evidence Trial Management Specific Discovery Adjournment Continuing Duty to Disclose Trial Listing +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K & E Estate (China) Limited

1st Plaintiff

K & E Real Estate Limited

2nd Plaintiff / Plaintiff (dccj 10728/2001)

K & E Company Limited

Defendant

Shelley To Sing Lui

1st Third Party

Thomas Tsoi Hung Chuang

2nd Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil District Court / Ruling on Application for Adjournment (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Failure to make specific discovery of documents
  2. 2 Application for adjournment to call additional witnesses
  3. 3 Timeliness of application and prejudice to court list and other parties

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was refused because it was made too late after lengthy prior exchanges; the discovery sought was largely second‑tier, plaintiffs delayed in raising matters and only recently involved counsel, and the prejudice to the court list and other litigants outweighed grounds for adjournment that could have been addressed by costs.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused
  • Proceed to trial as scheduled