Upplan Co Ltd v. Li Ho Ming and Another

HCA 1915/2009

[2018] HKCFI 962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1915 OF 2009

________________________

(By Original Action)

_______________________

AND BETWEEN

(By Counterclaim)

_______________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.Whilst it is unfortunate that the trial preparation by the Defendants may be criticised as inadequate (eg, the discovery has not been completed) which in part gave rise to the need to file a supplemental witness statement by them, the trial in this case is more than 18 months away and the court was informed of the need to file a supplemental witness statement by the Defendants at the Case Management Conference.

2.I am unable to see what real prejudice there is to the Plaintiff if this application is allowed.  With respect, the Plaintiff’s complaints are nothing more than suggestions that the trial preparation could have been better and various steps should have been taken by the Defendants in a timely manner.  It is right that the court does not endorse inadequate trial preparation but the fact is that the Defendants are trying to remedy the inadequacy well before the trial.

3.There is no merit in the opposition and this application is allowed.

Ms Karen Y Y Lau, instructed by Au Thong & Tsang, for the Plaintiff (by Original Action)

Mr Kenny C P Lin, instructed by Foo Leung & Yeung, for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (by Original Action)