KRALIK JAMES CHRISTOPHER v. VTECH HOLDINGS LTD
- Citation
- KRALIK JAMES CHRISTOPHER v. VTECH HOLDINGS LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 25 January 2007
- Posture
- Civil Admissibility of Evidence Application / Chambers Decision on Application to Adduce Witness Statements
- Case number
- HCA2894/2004
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 25 January 2007
- Posture
- Civil Admissibility of Evidence Application / Chambers Decision on Application to Adduce Witness Statements
- Case number
- HCA2894/2004
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was allowed because the contested matters had been raised previously in witness statements, opinion material is admissible under section 58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance, paragraph 34 of the amended defence and counterclaim provides sufficient particulars of loss and damage on one view of the pleadings, and any remaining deficiencies can be remedied by the defendant serving voluntary particulars without disrupting the trial.
Court disposition
Application allowed; costs in the cause
Orders
- Application to adduce the witness statements allowed
- Costs in the cause
- Defendant to serve voluntary particulars in a timely fashion so the plaintiff can respond
02
Material facts
Parties
Plaintiff
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Paul Carolan, instructed by Messrs Boase Cohen & CollinsDefendant
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Keith Yeung, instructed by Messrs Richards Butler03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Admissibility of Evidence Application / Chambers Decision on Application to Adduce Witness Statements
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the contested parts of witness statements are admissible as evidence
- 02
Whether opinion evidence in the statements is admissible under section 58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance
- 03
Whether the matters sought to be adduced were properly pleaded or require particulars
- 04
Whether allowing the statements will cause prejudice or delay to the trial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant sought leave to adduce witness statements and argued that paragraph 34 of the amended defence and counterclaim gives particulars of loss and damage and that some opinion material is admissible under s58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance; any lacking particulars can be supplied voluntarily and would not disrupt trial dates.
- Respondent
- The plaintiff objected to parts of the witness statements as objectionable and contended that particulars are lacking in the amended reply and defence to counterclaim.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Evidence Ordinance s58(2)
Opinion evidence may be admissible under statutory provision
- 02
Common law / trial practice
Assessment of weight of evidence is a matter for the trial judge
- 03
Case management / procedural practice as applied by the Court
Parties should supply particulars where pleaded particulars are deficient; voluntary particulars may be served to avoid delay
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was allowed because the contested matters had been raised previously in witness statements, opinion material is admissible under section 58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance, paragraph 34 of the amended defence and counterclaim provides sufficient particulars of loss and damage on one view of the pleadings, and any remaining deficiencies can be remedied by the defendant serving voluntary particulars without disrupting the trial.
Obiter and limits
- Much of the complained-of material had been raised in earlier witness statements to which no prior objection was taken
- The question of weight of the evidence is for the trial judge to decide
- The court will leave it to the defendant's legal team to serve voluntary particulars in a timely fashion
Court disposition
Application allowed; costs in the cause
- Application to adduce the witness statements allowed
- Costs in the cause
- Defendant to serve voluntary particulars in a timely fashion so the plaintiff can respond
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 25 January 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 25 January 2007
bjbj T[wc Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 25 January 2007 Date of Decision : 25 January 2007
D E C I S I O N
AUTONUMOUT Having heard the submissions, I am of the view that the statements that are sought to be put in at this stage ought to be allowed to be adduced as evidence.
AUTONUMOUT I observe that much of the matters that are complained of in the parts which Mr. Carolan says are objectionable are matters which have been raised previously in witness statements of the same witnesses to which no objection has been taken in the past.
AUTONUMOUT Ultimately the question of weight is one for me as the trial judge to deal with. It seems to me that even though some of the parts that are objected to do contain opinion evidence such is admissible under section 58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance.
AUTONUMOUT I also take the point that the evidence sought to be adduced now are, on one view of the pleadings, not matters that had been pleaded but I agree with Mr. Yeung that the pleading at paragraph 34 of the amended defence and counterclaim does give some particulars of the loss and damage that the defendant says it suffered. It is pleaded under the particulars that as a result of the plaintiff s failure to keep the defendant s Chief Executive Officer and the defendant s Board of Directors promptly and fully informed, the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to take timely corrective measures and/or steps to rectify and improve the performance of the defendant s Consumer Telephone Products Unit.
AUTONUMOUT Mr. Carolan has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs in the amended reply and defence to counterclaim where it has been asserted that the particulars are lacking. This is not a matter that should delay matters because particulars have now been provided in the witness statements and if particulars are lacking, the defendant should supply voluntary particulars. From what I have heard this would not cause the trial dates to be disrupted. I will leave it to the good sense of the legal team advising the defendant to serve voluntary particulars in a timely fashion so that the plaintiff can respond.
AUTONUMOUT I allow the application. Costs in the cause. (Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Mr. Paul Carolan, instructed by Messrs Boase Cohen & Collins, for the plaintiff Mr. Keith Yeung, instructed by Messrs Richards Butler, for the Defendant
PAGE -
A
B
C D E 1udk 1udk
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V (#p# (#p# r p# (#p# r p# "@AB9D / Jz @m2z ]C]6 uxB26I ]C]6 & 6"
CACV abc-sak-hca Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary
CACV Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.