TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS

TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS

The court admitted the late additional evidence because it was admissible, relevant and probative, did not introduce a new case, the lateness was not sufficiently prejudicial given the remaining time before trial and the judge's diary could accommodate extra days, and proportionality favored admission given the large quantum and serious allegations; costs were allocated to reflect which party gained and lost on the contested application.

Citation
TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Tin Lik; 1st Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG; 2nd Defendant: RREEF China REIT Management Limited; 3rd Defendant: HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Asia) Limited as trustee for the RREEF China Commercial Trust
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Case Number
HCCL17/2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (court of First Instance) / Pre Trial (interlocutory Application to Adduce Additional Evidence)
Outcome
Application allowed in part: additional evidence admitted with conditions; costs ordered between parties as detailed
Legal Topics
Late Application to Adduce Evidence, Witness Statements, Discovery, Costs Allocation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Commercial Law Fraud Late Application to Adduce Evidence Witness Statements Discovery Costs Allocation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tin Lik

Plaintiff

Deutsche Bank AG

1st Defendant

RREEF China REIT Management Limited

2nd Defendant

HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Asia) Limited as trustee for the RREEF China Commercial Trust

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (court of First Instance) / Pre Trial (interlocutory Application to Adduce Additional Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late additional witness statements and documentary evidence should be admitted at trial
  2. 2 Whether the additional evidence raises a new case or defence
  3. 3 Whether admission would cause undue prejudice or disrupt the trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the late additional evidence because it was admissible, relevant and probative, did not introduce a new case, the lateness was not sufficiently prejudicial given the remaining time before trial and the judge's diary could accommodate extra days, and proportionality favored admission given the large quantum and serious allegations; costs were allocated to reflect which party gained and lost on the contested application.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: additional evidence admitted with conditions; costs ordered between parties as detailed

Orders

  • Leave granted to 1st and 2nd defendants to adduce additional evidence in terms of items 1 and 2 of their summons dated 10 July 2013
  • Supplemental witness statement of Mr Paul Thomas Keogh to be amended to remove any inadmissible opinion