28 Jun 2017
Retrospective leave was granted because allowing the late challenge would not cause forensic prejudice to the plaintiff nor affect the trial dates, and the document would remain in the bundle with the plaintiff required to prove its authenticity.
4 Mar 2016
Paragraph 6 of Mr To's witness statement was factual evidence by the auditor explaining actions in the course of auditing and not expert opinion requiring prior leave; the court therefore admitted the paragraph. The court granted extension to file the Notice of Non-admission but ordered that the plaintiffs bear the costs occasioned by that extension; hearing costs were assessed at HKD 90,000 payable by the plaintiffs within 28 days.
3 Oct 2013
The court applied the statutory starting point in RHC Order 62 r 3(6) that ordinarily a party serving a Notice of Non-Admission must bear the costs of proving those documents and held the plaintiff failed to show sufficient grounds to displace that starting point: the plaintiff's partial withdrawal of challenges and restrained trial conduct did not negate substantial pre-trial work and costs, the asserted reasons for disputing authenticity were insufficiently specific or convincing, and the prior PTR order did not pre-determine costs incidence. Separately, the plaintiff's settlement correspon…
3 Oct 2013
The court exercised its discretion starting from the statutory presumption in Order 62 r 3(6) and concluded there were insufficient grounds to depart from that presumption; the costs order nisi was varied in the defendants' favor so that the plaintiff must pay the costs of proving the non-admitted documents and the defendants' application costs, and the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.