18 Nov 2021
The court granted the defendant leave under s48 EO to call and cross-examine Ms Yau and ordered the plaintiff to make arrangements to secure her attendance, but refused to exclude the Yau Affirmation if Ms Yau does not attend; the affirmation remains admissible as hearsay and its weight is for the trial judge under s49 EO.
9 Sept 2011
The adjournment was occasioned and necessitated by the defendants' very late application to file a witness statement (and their request for time to file supporting affidavit), the defendants' very late disclosure and supply of documents and failure to provide full and accurate information about those documents as required by authority, and the defendants' request for time to consider and file a strike out application; accordingly the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment were ordered to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 6th defendants.
12 Jun 2006
The defendant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for late discovery; the test reports are expert evidence not mere tests and were not exchanged as ordered; admitting them without makers for cross-examination would prejudice the plaintiff in a way that costs cannot remedy; accordingly leave under Order 38 rule 41 is refused and the defendant may not rely on Items 17 and 18.