CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Refusal to reopen: the proposed evidence was of low and peripheral probative value for the issues to be decided; the Plaintiff failed to show sufficient due diligence in procuring and disclosing the evidence before trial; permitting the evidence would be unfair and prejudicial to the 1st Defendant and likely disrupt the trial schedule; therefore the interests of justice required refusal of the application.

Citation
CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Case Number
HCAP8/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial (will Dispute/probate) / Application to Adduce Additional Evidence After Close of Plaintiff's Case (trial Stage)
Outcome
Application for leave to call additional evidence refused; Plaintiff's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Opening of Case, Rebuttal Evidence, Subpoena Ad Testificandum, Late Disclosure, Authenticity of Documents, Prejudice and Fairness, Order 1 a Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Probate and Succession Case Management Re Opening of Case Rebuttal Evidence Subpoena Ad Testificandum Late Disclosure +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial (will Dispute/probate) / Application to Adduce Additional Evidence After Close of Plaintiff's Case (trial Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow reopening of the Plaintiff's case to call Mr Leung to give evidence after close of Plaintiff's case
  2. 2 Whether proposed evidence (Fung Shui notes and Mr Leung's testimony) is sufficiently probative and material to justify reopening
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff's claimed surprise justifies admission given alleged lack of due diligence

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to reopen: the proposed evidence was of low and peripheral probative value for the issues to be decided; the Plaintiff failed to show sufficient due diligence in procuring and disclosing the evidence before trial; permitting the evidence would be unfair and prejudicial to the 1st Defendant and likely disrupt the trial schedule; therefore the interests of justice required refusal of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to call additional evidence refused; Plaintiff's application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to call Mr Leung to give evidence refused
  • Plaintiff's application to adduce additional evidence dismissed