CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v, LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v, LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO

Both applications to adduce late expert evidence were dismissed because the applicants failed to provide full and frank explanations for delay, failed to comply with case management directions and timetabling under the CJR, admission would likely disrupt and prolong the trial without sufficient time for joint expert meeting and report, and the Defendant's proposed report had low probative value; accordingly leave to admit the evidence was refused.

Citation
CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v, LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 May 2010
Case Number
HCA1480/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Building Contract Dispute (defective Workmanship) / Pre Trial Applications for Leave to Admit Expert Evidence; Case Set Down for Trial (trial Fixed to Start 14 May 2010)
Outcome
Both summonses dismissed; leave to adduce the proposed expert evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Admission of Late Evidence, Joint Expert Report, Civil Justice Reform, Pre Trial Directions
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Construction Law Contract Law Expert Evidence Case Management Admission of Late Evidence Joint Expert Report +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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Building Contract Dispute (defective Workmanship) / Pre Trial Applications for Leave to Admit Expert Evidence; Case Set Down for Trial (trial Fixed to Start 14 May 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to admit late expert evidence by Defendant
  2. 2 Whether to grant leave to admit late expert evidence by Plaintiff (reply expert)
  3. 3 Compliance with case management directions and timetabling obligations under CJR/PD5.2

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications to adduce late expert evidence were dismissed because the applicants failed to provide full and frank explanations for delay, failed to comply with case management directions and timetabling under the CJR, admission would likely disrupt and prolong the trial without sufficient time for joint expert meeting and report, and the Defendant's proposed report had low probative value; accordingly leave to admit the evidence was refused.

Court Disposition

Both summonses dismissed; leave to adduce the proposed expert evidence refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's summons of 24 March 2010 dismissed
  • Plaintiff's summons of 28 April 2010 dismissed