FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD

FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD

The 3rd affirmation evidence was available at the hearing before the master and the defendant deliberately chose not to adduce it then; the defendant therefore failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition (could not show the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the hearing below) and no special grounds existed to admit fresh evidence on appeal; application refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Unknown Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Case Number
HCA312/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal (hearings Before Master and in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Criteria, Set Off, Counterclaim
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Law Summary Judgment Fresh Evidence on Appeal Ladd V Marshall Criteria Set Off Counterclaim

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal (hearings Before Master and in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant established special grounds to adduce fresh evidence on appeal under the applicable rules and Ladd v Marshall
  2. 2 Whether the evidence now tendered was obtainable with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing below
  3. 3 Whether the fresh evidence would raise a triable issue and is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The 3rd affirmation evidence was available at the hearing before the master and the defendant deliberately chose not to adduce it then; the defendant therefore failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition (could not show the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the hearing below) and no special grounds existed to admit fresh evidence on appeal; application refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce further evidence dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff