BANK OF CHINA, MACAU BRANCH v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER

BANK OF CHINA, MACAU BRANCH v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER

Leave to file the late Macau legal opinion was refused because the defendant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite prior leave to serve evidence, the opinion was accompanied by untranslated Portuguese documents, it omitted dealing with a material clause (clause 10) which might affect the plaintiff's right to sue, and an adjournment or leave is not to be granted automatically even if prejudice might be compensable by costs.

Citation
BANK OF CHINA, MACAU BRANCH v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant / Guarantor: 1st Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2004
Case Number
HCA745/2003
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application With Appeal From Master; Application to Adduce Further Evidence / Hearing on Summons for Leave to File Second Affirmation (admission of Late Expert Opinion) on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Summons for leave to file the 2nd affirmation exhibiting a Macau legal opinion refused; abridgement of time for the summons was granted earlier
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, Summary Judgment, Expert Legal Opinion, Foreign Law Evidence, Translation of Documents, Timeliness and Prejudice, Interpretation of Guarantee Clause
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Conflict of Laws Contract/guarantee Law Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Summary Judgment Expert Legal Opinion Foreign Law Evidence +3 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant / Guarantor

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application With Appeal From Master; Application to Adduce Further Evidence / Hearing on Summons for Leave to File Second Affirmation (admission of Late Expert Opinion) on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to file a second affirmation containing a Macau legal opinion after significant delay
  2. 2 Whether the delay was adequately explained so as to justify admitting late evidence
  3. 3 Whether untranslated Portuguese documents accompanying the opinion rendered reliance on them unfair or unsuitable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the late Macau legal opinion was refused because the defendant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite prior leave to serve evidence, the opinion was accompanied by untranslated Portuguese documents, it omitted dealing with a material clause (clause 10) which might affect the plaintiff's right to sue, and an adjournment or leave is not to be granted automatically even if prejudice might be compensable by costs.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to file the 2nd affirmation exhibiting a Macau legal opinion refused; abridgement of time for the summons was granted earlier

Orders

  • Abridgement of time for service of the summons granted
  • Leave to file and serve the 2nd affirmation containing the Macau legal opinion refused