Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 38 rule 2a

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2011

VASTCO TEXTILES LTD v. SUPER GLORY CORPORATION LTD

Citation

VASTCO TEXTILES LTD v. SUPER GLORY CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1678/2009

Portions of the witness statement and interrogatory answers consisting of speculation, belief or immaterial matters were struck out as inadmissible or irrelevant under Order 38 Rule 2A, while passages directly evidencing dealings between the Defendant and Li Dong were retained; interrogatory answers were struck out except for a single factual sentence, and costs were awarded to the Defendant.
12 Apr 1996

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

Citation

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA250/1991

The court exercised its discretion to admit Mr Novak's oral evidence about prior use of distilled water (Lost and Found) without ordering further discovery because the substance was within what was already asserted and additional discovery was not necessary for fair disposal or saving costs; conversely the court ruled the supplemental statement largely inadmissible as evidence in chief because much of it lacked direct knowledge, amounted to opinion or drew conclusions from documents, though Galco was permitted to lead admissible parts or further direct evidence to support excluded material.
12 Apr 1996

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

Citation

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/1991

The court exercised its discretion to allow Mr Novak to give the challenged oral evidence de bene esse about prior use of distilled water (including reference to the Lost and Found product) without ordering further discovery, finding the substance of Galco's claim was in the statement and that further discovery was unnecessary for a fair trial; the court ruled the supplemental statement largely inadmissible because much of it contained argument, conclusions, hearsay or matters beyond Mr Novak's direct knowledge, but allowed Galco to lead any additional admissible evidence from Mr Novak suppor…
5 Oct 1995

NGAI HUNG CHAU v. KWOK KEUNG and Others

Citation

NGAI HUNG CHAU v. KWOK KEUNG and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3731/1994

The historic prohibition on interrogatories seeking the names of potential witnesses is qualified: where an objecting party intends to call a witness it cannot withhold that witness’s identity and must give an express assurance if it will not call the witness. Separately, interrogatories served prematurely before directions for mutual exchange of witness statements and without justification are inappropriate and may be withdrawn. Applying these principles the appeal was allowed on the ground that the interrogatories were premature and unnecessary, and costs were awarded to the defendants.
19 May 1995

ALLINGTON INVESTMENTS CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. FIRST PACIFIC BANCSHARES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ALLINGTON INVESTMENTS CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. FIRST PACIFIC BANCSHARES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10613/1993

The court held that the contested parts of the witness statements offended the rules against hearsay, the plaintiffs had not shown any ground for admissibility or served a hearsay notice under r.2A(6), there was no justification to stand the matter over to the trial judge, and therefore the plaintiffs were ordered to amend the witness statements to remove the offending parts and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Hong Kong Case Law

VASTCO TEXTILES LTD v. SUPER GLORY CORPORATION LTD

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

NGAI HUNG CHAU v. KWOK KEUNG and Others

ALLINGTON INVESTMENTS CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. FIRST PACIFIC BANCSHARES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER