SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS

SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS

The court exercised its discretion under Practice Direction 29 to permit the 1st defendant to give evidence by VCF because he is a crucial witness, the reasons for non-attendance (residence abroad, enforcement exposure, medical reports) were sufficiently credible, and permitting VCF would not cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs and would serve fair and efficient disposal; however the application to observe and participate in the entire trial via VCF was refused for lack of compelling reason and resource/management concerns.

Citation
SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (action No.1212) and Defendant (counterclaim): Sun Legend Investments Limited; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Ho Yuk Wah David; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Ho Yuk Kuen Jade; 3rd Defendant (original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chan Man Ho Brian; 4th Defendant (original Action); 4th Plaintiff (counterclaim): David Y.W. Ho & Co (a firm); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim in Action No.1212); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim in Action No.2915): New World Development Co Ltd; 1st Plaintiff (action No.2915); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Beijing Chongwen-New World Properties Development Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (action No.2915); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): China New World Electronics Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 April 2008
Case Number
HCA1212/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Consolidated Actions (commercial/real Property/legal Fees Dispute) / Interlocutory Application for Directions Re Venue and Use of Video Conferencing Facilities (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Video Conferencing, Technology Court, Witness Testimony, Fugitive Testimony, Case Management, Extension of Time, Costs Follow the Event
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Court Administration Technology in Litigation Costs Video Conferencing Technology Court Witness Testimony +4 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Legend Investments Limited

Plaintiff (action No.1212) and Defendant (counterclaim)

Ho Yuk Wah David

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Ho Yuk Kuen Jade

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Chan Man Ho Brian

3rd Defendant (original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

David Y.W. Ho & Co (a firm)

4th Defendant (original Action); 4th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

New World Development Co Ltd

2nd Defendant (counterclaim in Action No.1212); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim in Action No.2915)

Beijing Chongwen-New World Properties Development Company Limited

1st Plaintiff (action No.2915); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

China New World Electronics Limited

2nd Plaintiff (action No.2915); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Consolidated Actions (commercial/real Property/legal Fees Dispute) / Interlocutory Application for Directions Re Venue and Use of Video Conferencing Facilities (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant may give evidence by video conferencing facilities (VCF)
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant may observe and participate in the entire trial via VCF
  3. 3 What constitutes a valid reason to permit VCF under Practice Direction 29

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under Practice Direction 29 to permit the 1st defendant to give evidence by VCF because he is a crucial witness, the reasons for non-attendance (residence abroad, enforcement exposure, medical reports) were sufficiently credible, and permitting VCF would not cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs and would serve fair and efficient disposal; however the application to observe and participate in the entire trial via VCF was refused for lack of compelling reason and resource/management concerns.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • The evidence of the 1st defendant (by Original Action) shall be received by means of video conferencing facilities and the Technology Court shall be used for part of the trial.
  • The time for setting down the consolidated action for trial is extended for 42 days from the date of this Decision.