EIL CO LTD v. SIU CHUN WAH VINCENT AND OTHERS

EIL CO LTD v. SIU CHUN WAH VINCENT AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because applicants offered only bare denials without an alternative theory or propensity evidence so the cogency requirement did not alter the plaintiff's burden; the hearsay relied upon was not challenged at trial and the judge properly weighed it under s.49; the applicants failed to justify delay in seeking to re-open cross-examination and did not demonstrate misuse of discretion; costs ordered to plaintiff.

Citation
EIL CO LTD v. SIU CHUN WAH VINCENT AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): EIL COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant (1st Applicant): SIU CHUN WAH VINCENT; 2nd Defendant (2nd Applicant): LI SHIU CHING; 3rd Defendant: CHAN SUK FONG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 April 2006
Case Number
DCCJ1881/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (district Court) / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered to plaintiff with certificate for counsel; costs order nisi to become absolute after 14 days.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Hearsay (s.49 Evidence Ordinance), Requirement for Cogent/propensity Evidence, Re Opening Cross Examination, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Fraud Appeal Leave to Appeal Hearsay (s.49 Evidence Ordinance) Requirement for Cogent/propensity Evidence Re Opening Cross Examination +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EIL COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff (respondent)

SIU CHUN WAH VINCENT

1st Defendant (1st Applicant)

LI SHIU CHING

2nd Defendant (2nd Applicant)

CHAN SUK FONG

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (district Court) / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether a heightened requirement for cogent/propensity evidence applies before finding serious fraud
  3. 3 Whether the court failed to have regard to s.49 Evidence Ordinance when assessing hearsay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because applicants offered only bare denials without an alternative theory or propensity evidence so the cogency requirement did not alter the plaintiff's burden; the hearsay relied upon was not challenged at trial and the judge properly weighed it under s.49; the applicants failed to justify delay in seeking to re-open cross-examination and did not demonstrate misuse of discretion; costs ordered to plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered to plaintiff with certificate for counsel; costs order nisi to become absolute after 14 days.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs with certificate for counsel.