Tsoi Kwong Shi v. Guo Xin and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 227/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 September 2015.
1. This is a very late application for introduction of additional evidence. It is contrary to the directions given by the court on 17 July 2014.
Cites 1 case
|
HCCW 227/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 227 OF 2015 __________________
__________________
__________________
______________ D E C I S I O N ______________ 1.This is a very late application for introduction of additional evidence. It is contrary to the directions given by the court on 17 July 2014. 2.I agree with Mr Chan that there is no good explanation for the delay. Even in respect of Mr Kei’s evidence, he regarded himself as having left the employment of AFM on 6 August 2015 and there is no proper explanation on what transpired between then and the making of his affirmation on 17 September 2015 as to why he changed his mind to give evidence in this case and what Tsoi did to persuade him to do so. 3.In any case, Kei’s evidence only adds to the dispute and is of little assistance to the court. 4.As regards the additional evidence from Tsoi, there is simply no reason to allow him another opportunity to file reply evidence on matters which are within his knowledge for some time. 5.Accordingly, the Summons dated 18 September 2015 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Mr William Wong SC and Mr Alex Fan, instructed by Hon & Co, for the petitioner Mr Joe Chan, instructed by Fongs, for the 1st and 2nd respondents Ms Fiona Lee, for Official Receiver |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 227/2015