FOELAN WONG v. WONG TZE KIN

FOELAN WONG v. WONG TZE KIN

Grant leave for the 3rd Supplemental Statement because the matters are relevant, not new, draft was provided two weeks before trial, no unjust prejudice to plaintiff (can deal at examination-in-chief), and admission will promote efficient trial; allow inclusion of Bundle D2 because documents are largely known or attached and necessary to consider the supplemental statement; refuse to exclude the Gold Deal Documents and Telephone Bills before trial because authenticity and weight are issues for trial evidence and exclusion at this stage would be prejudicial to the interests of justice; allocate costs reflecting the parties' conduct and success on discrete applications.

Citation
FOELAN WONG v. WONG TZE KIN
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Case Number
DCCJ2650/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial (contract/debt; Evidentiary Preliminary Issues) / Pre Trial Applications Heard on First Day of a 4 Day Trial (3 July 2013)
Outcome
Mixed: leave granted for supplemental evidence and inclusion of additional documents; pre-trial exclusion of contested documents refused
Legal Topics
Admission of Documents, Hearsay, Document Authenticity, Supplemental Witness Statements, Costs Assessment, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Evidence Contract Court Procedure Admission of Documents Hearsay Document Authenticity Supplemental Witness Statements +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial (contract/debt; Evidentiary Preliminary Issues) / Pre Trial Applications Heard on First Day of a 4 Day Trial (3 July 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for the defendant to file and rely on a 3rd supplemental witness statement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant may rely on documents contained in Bundle D2 at trial
  3. 3 Whether the court should exclude before trial the Irrevocable Master Fee Protection Agreement, the Sale & Purchase Agreement for Gold Bars and the defendant's Telephone Bills

Ratio Decidendi

Grant leave for the 3rd Supplemental Statement because the matters are relevant, not new, draft was provided two weeks before trial, no unjust prejudice to plaintiff (can deal at examination-in-chief), and admission will promote efficient trial; allow inclusion of Bundle D2 because documents are largely known or attached and necessary to consider the supplemental statement; refuse to exclude the Gold Deal Documents and Telephone Bills before trial because authenticity and weight are issues for trial evidence and exclusion at this stage would be prejudicial to the interests of justice; allocate costs reflecting the parties' conduct and success on discrete applications.

Court Disposition

Mixed: leave granted for supplemental evidence and inclusion of additional documents; pre-trial exclusion of contested documents refused

Orders

  • Leave granted for defendant to file and serve the 3rd Supplemental Statement and to rely on it at trial
  • Plaintiff permitted to lead evidence-in-chief on matters raised in the 3rd Supplemental Statement