WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

Short delay (three days) did not justify permitting fresh evidence in a reply; P Third Affirmation was granted retrospective leave only insofar as it constituted proper reply evidence, but legal submissions and identified fresh factual matters and specific paragraphs were expunged; D2 Affirmation was expunged because interlocutory judgment had been entered against the 2nd defendant, precluding any defence; the court declined to respond to P Second Affirmation as it was not a procedural application under the Rules.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Wei Wei; 1st Defendant: Chi Chih Tong; 2nd Defendant: Wong Yin Mui; Intended 3rd Defendant: Tsang Chi Ho
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Case Number
DCPI990/2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review / Interlocutory Applications (summonses)
Outcome
Partial grant and partial refusal: D2 Affirmation expunged; retrospective leave granted to file P Third Affirmation with specified parts and paragraphs expunged; court will not reply to P Second Affirmation; costs to be addressed later.
Legal Topics
Dog Bite, Liability of Owner/keeper, Interlocutory Relief, Extension of Time to File Evidence, Effect of Interlocutory/default Judgment
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Animal Liability Civil Procedure Evidence Dog Bite Liability of Owner/keeper Interlocutory Relief Extension of Time to File Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wei Wei

Plaintiff

Chi Chih Tong

1st Defendant

Wong Yin Mui

2nd Defendant

Tsang Chi Ho

Intended 3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review / Interlocutory Applications (summonses)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted retrospective leave to file a late affirmation in reply (P Third Affirmation)
  2. 2 Whether the court should respond to P Second Affirmation (a letter to the judge)
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant's affirmation should be expunged given interlocutory judgment entered against her

Ratio Decidendi

Short delay (three days) did not justify permitting fresh evidence in a reply; P Third Affirmation was granted retrospective leave only insofar as it constituted proper reply evidence, but legal submissions and identified fresh factual matters and specific paragraphs were expunged; D2 Affirmation was expunged because interlocutory judgment had been entered against the 2nd defendant, precluding any defence; the court declined to respond to P Second Affirmation as it was not a procedural application under the Rules.

Court Disposition

Partial grant and partial refusal: D2 Affirmation expunged; retrospective leave granted to file P Third Affirmation with specified parts and paragraphs expunged; court will not reply to P Second Affirmation; costs to be addressed later.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment entered against 2nd defendant on 28 July 2015 noted; D2 Affirmation expunged
  • Retrospective leave granted for plaintiff to file P Third Affirmation on 8 January 2018