22 Sept 2023
FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 2332
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2860/2018
[2023] HKCFI 2332
Hong Kong Case Law
Prejudice and trial disruption
6 Jun 2023
CHUBB LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (formerly known as ACE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD) v. CHAN CHRISTY
- Citation
- [2023] HKDC 816
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ4461/2019
Leave to file the 3rd Supplemental Witness Statement was granted only insofar as it records the plaintiff's attempts to contact Hans and Alex and their confirmations (paras 1–17, pages 1–5 of exhibit CSC-4) because that evidence is relevant and not prejudicial; leave was refused for Chow's personal views and adoption of Hans' and Alex's statements (paras 8–49, pages 6–48) because those portions are of little or marginal probative value, were raised too late, and would unfairly prejudice the defendant and require further investigation and evidence, defeating cost-effectiveness and fairness.
30 Jun 2017
ORIENT POWER HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG
- Citation
- ORIENT POWER HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCCL14/2014
Application dismissed because there was substantial unexplained delay from the court-ordered exchange date, the plaintiffs' and SCB's prior decision not to call the witness was not a good reason for late admission, admission would cause prejudice and likely disruption requiring third-party discovery from SCB, and fairness and CJR principles weigh against allowing the late evidence.
25 Oct 2016
AROTAMAS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MELOFIELD NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LTD
- Citation
- AROTAMAS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MELOFIELD NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LTD
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ309/2015
Amendments correcting paragraphs 14 and 20 and any supplemental witness evidence strictly necessary to those corrections were allowed; the late additional maintenance costs claim was refused because it was known or should have been known earlier, the defendant gave an inadequate explanation for the delay, the amendment would require additional undisclosed evidence and discovery and would unduly disrupt the imminent trial and prejudice the plaintiff. Costs were ordered against the defendant.