15 Jan 2019
The stay was lifted because the plaintiff had not justified delay, the defendants had provided substantial discovery, and lifting the stay would not prevent further discovery; accordingly the court ordered exchange of witness statements on a fixed timetable and awarded costs to the defendants.
31 Oct 2011
Deputy High Court Judge Carlson dismissed the Plaintiff's three late interlocutory summonses (to exclude Tess Ng III/IV or for leave to call an expert, for substantial further discovery, and for leave to appeal the 30 September disclosure order) and refused leave to appeal those interlocutory rulings; he allowed the 1st and 2nd Defendants' joinder of APL and, because the trial was adjourned, permitted the defendants to amend their defence and counterclaim; on costs he awarded the Plaintiff the costs of the defendants' joinder/amendment summons (taxed party and party) and ordered the Plaintiff…
7 Oct 2009
Although the Plaintiff offered an unsatisfactory explanation for the extreme lateness, the court exercised its discretion to allow the redacted late witness statement and further revision of the RSOD subject to strict conditions to protect the respondent from prejudice: the Summons must be filed by the deadline, the redacted Statement must be verified, there is no further leave to amplify the Statement, examination in chief limited to 20 minutes, the 2nd Defendant may file a Revised Answer and seek clarifications, specified bundle pages and disputed items are expunged, and costs of the Summon…
17 Apr 2007
The appeal is dismissed because although the Master had not read the papers in sufficient detail and displayed impatience, his conduct did not demonstrate hostility or bias towards the 1st Plaintiff such that a reasonable informed observer would apprehend he could not fairly hear the summons; the Master acted within acceptable standards and need not recuse himself, and an acknowledged complaint to the Chief Judge does not itself require recusal.
26 Mar 2007
The summons was partially dismissed and partially allowed: Item 1 denied as overly broad and fishing because it related largely to other subcontracts and build-ups not directly concerning the plaintiff; Item 5 was allowed limitedly — disclosure of percentage complete figures (Item 5A(1)) and Appendix A to the final account (Item 5B(1)) only; Item 3 was allowed but confined to the defendant's applications and supporting documents dated 10/7/01, 19/4/02, 20/6/02, 22/10/02, 7/11/02, 20/12/02 and 30/12/02 to permit assessment of the $2.2m credit for prolongation.
27 Mar 2002
Defendants failed to establish on the totality of material that additional undisclosed documents exist; affidavits sworn by authorised deponents asserting no further documents stand unrefuted and are conclusive; even if an inference of undisclosed documents could be drawn, the court would exercise its discretion under Order 24 r.16 to refuse further discovery to prevent prolonged satellite litigation and to promote an expeditious trial. Therefore the summonses for further discovery are dismissed.