Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hearsay notices

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2003

MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS

Citation

MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7935/1998

Given the history of dilatoriness, the imminence of trial and the balancing exercise required by authorities such as Mortgage Corporation v Sandoes and Costellow, the court preserved the scheduled trial dates and exercised discretion to admit some but not all late material: leave granted to file four of six additional witness statements (items 1(i)–(iv)), leave refused for evidence that would open a new prejudicial dimension (the Andy Lo offer / Man Bun material and item vi), and certain hearsay Chinese notes were admitted without calling makers because makers were dead or out of jurisdiction…
5 May 2000

THE MAGWAY

Citation

THE MAGWAY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ14/1999

The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff to adduce the late witness statements and additional expert evidence as the material was relevant and the defendants had not shown irreparable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs; the imminent trial was vacated to enable proper preparation, and costs were ordered against the plaintiff with an order nisi directed against payment by legal aid for the plaintiff's solicitors for today's hearing.
2 May 2000

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/1997

The Court directed that the plaintiff's action be dismissed and the judge's order below set aside; the defendants' costs of the action are to be taxed (if not agreed) and paid by the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal must determine by substantive hearing whether special costs orders should be made to reflect defendants' discrete failures on particular issues. The Court issued procedural directions for written submissions and allocated a four‑day hearing to decide costs.
2 May 2000

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/1997

The Vice‑President directed that the plaintiff's action be dismissed and the judge's order below set aside, that the defendants' costs of the action be taxed and paid by the plaintiff subject to the Court of Appeal determining whether special costs orders are required to reflect defendants' failures on discrete issues, and issued a timetable and directions for written submissions and a four‑day hearing to determine the costs order; costs of the directions hearing to be costs in the substantive hearing.
2 May 2000

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/1997

The Court directed that the judge's order below be set aside, the action be dismissed, and the defendants' costs of the action be taxed (if not agreed) and paid by the plaintiff; a further hearing before the Court of Appeal is necessary to determine whether and what special costs orders should be made to reflect defendants' failures on discrete issues, with specific filing deadlines and an allotted four‑day hearing period to determine the costs order.
27 May 1983

HUI CHEUNG WAI t/a SUN HING PLASTIC ADVERTISING MANUFACTORY CO v. GENERAL MERCHANTS LTD

Citation

HUI CHEUNG WAI t/a SUN HING PLASTIC ADVERTISING MANUFACTORY CO v. GENERAL MERCHANTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1444/1981

Counterclaim failed for lack of reliable evidence of widespread defects and unmerchantability: no competent independent surveyor evidence produced as required by contract, insufficient sample and evidence on extent of defects, and Defendant failed to mitigate and entered an unreasonable compromise; therefore plaintiff entitled to judgment for the claim with interest; defendant liable for costs as ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS

THE MAGWAY

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING (BODY CORPORATE) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO LTD AND OTHERS

HUI CHEUNG WAI t/a SUN HING PLASTIC ADVERTISING MANUFACTORY CO v. GENERAL MERCHANTS LTD