AD (also known as AT) v. RT

AD (also known as AT) v. RT

The application was dismissed because the respondent was conclusively bound by prior admissions agreeing the expert's valuations, no timely or formal application to withdraw those admissions was made, the respondent offered no credible or convincing explanation for resiling, the request was late and tactical and would cause irremediable prejudice to the petitioner given imminent trial preparation, and there was no adequate contrary expert evidence to support reopening the issue.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2173
Parties
Petitioner: AD (also known as AT); Respondent: RT; 1st Intervener: RET; 2nd Intervener: MT; 3rd Intervener: RKM; 4th Intervener: SS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2024
Case Number
HCMC1/2022
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (matrimonial Causes No 1 of 2022) / Paper Disposal of Application Pre Trial (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Withdrawal of Admissions, Valuation of Private Companies, Costs and Prejudice
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Corporate Valuation Expert Evidence Withdrawal of Admissions Valuation of Private Companies Costs and Prejudice

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AD (also known as AT)

Petitioner

RT

Respondent

RET

1st Intervener

MT

2nd Intervener

RKM

3rd Intervener

SS

4th Intervener

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (matrimonial Causes No 1 of 2022) / Paper Disposal of Application Pre Trial (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the party can withdraw prior admissions of agreed valuations and thereby call the single joint expert for cross-examination at trial
  2. 2 Whether the court's quasi-inquisitorial role requires investigation of agreed issues such as agreed valuations
  3. 3 Whether the lateness of the application and potential prejudice justify refusal to allow withdrawal of admissions

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the respondent was conclusively bound by prior admissions agreeing the expert's valuations, no timely or formal application to withdraw those admissions was made, the respondent offered no credible or convincing explanation for resiling, the request was late and tactical and would cause irremediable prejudice to the petitioner given imminent trial preparation, and there was no adequate contrary expert evidence to support reopening the issue.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that H shall bear W's costs of the application