YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (HK) LTD

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (HK) LTD

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge found no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge acted within the discretion granted by Order 38 in permitting amplification of defendant's evidence; the plaintiff's attempt to introduce fresh evidence after close without recalling the witness contravened procedural rules and lacked merit; no breach of natural justice or bias was demonstrated; consequently no basis for an appeal or a stay existed.

Citation
YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (HK) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff in Dccj5593/2007; Defendant in Dccj605/2008: MACPI GROUP (HK) LIMITED; Defendant in Dccj5593/2007; Plaintiff in Dccj605/2008: YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Case Number
DCCJ605/2008
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions Arising From Employment Dispute in the District Court; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Determined; Ancillary Application for Stay of Execution and Costs Decided
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Re Opening Closed Case, Witness Statements and Amplification, Natural Justice, Costs, Stay of Execution
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Evidence Appeal Leave to Appeal Re Opening Closed Case Witness Statements and Amplification Natural Justice +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MACPI GROUP (HK) LIMITED

Plaintiff in Dccj5593/2007; Defendant in Dccj605/2008

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND

Defendant in Dccj5593/2007; Plaintiff in Dccj605/2008

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions Arising From Employment Dispute in the District Court; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Determined; Ancillary Application for Stay of Execution and Costs Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by allowing the defendant to amplify her witness evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the plaintiff permission to file a 5th witness statement after close of case without recalling the witness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge found no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge acted within the discretion granted by Order 38 in permitting amplification of defendant's evidence; the plaintiff's attempt to introduce fresh evidence after close without recalling the witness contravened procedural rules and lacked merit; no breach of natural justice or bias was demonstrated; consequently no basis for an appeal or a stay existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Application for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 59 r 13 dismissed.