CHAN TING ON v. MULTI SKILL INVESTMENTS LTD

CHAN TING ON v. MULTI SKILL INVESTMENTS LTD

Application allowed because the handwritten passbook entries were already in evidence, the witness who made the records was already a factual witness and would be required to explain them, there would be no disruption of trial dates and no real prejudice to the plaintiff; lateness alone did not justify refusal.

Citation
CHAN TING ON v. MULTI SKILL INVESTMENTS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 August 2016
Case Number
DCCJ2786/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application Relating to Witness Evidence and Case Management / Trial Commencement (application Made on First Day of Trial)
Outcome
Defendant's application allowed.
Legal Topics
Late Filing, Witness Statements, Trial Management, Prejudice, Costs, Case Management Powers
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Case Management Late Filing Witness Statements Trial Management Prejudice Costs +1 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application Relating to Witness Evidence and Case Management / Trial Commencement (application Made on First Day of Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to file a second supplemental witness statement at the eleventh hour
  2. 2 Whether lateness and potential prejudice to the other party justify refusal
  3. 3 Whether the proposed evidence would disrupt trial or require adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Application allowed because the handwritten passbook entries were already in evidence, the witness who made the records was already a factual witness and would be required to explain them, there would be no disruption of trial dates and no real prejudice to the plaintiff; lateness alone did not justify refusal.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application allowed.

Orders

  • Application allowed in terms of paragraph 1 of the summons.
  • Plaintiff shall have the costs of this application in any event with certificate for counsel.