Read the full judgment text of CACV 505/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 July 2020 before Hon Lam VP and Au JA.
Civil procedure – further evidence on appeal – Order 59 rule 10(2) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) – application for leave to adduce Singapore Court of Appeal judgment as further evidence on appeal from HCA 3391/2016 and 1417/2013 – whether foreign court judgment can be admitted as evidence of facts found therein – Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587 principle – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2004] Ch 1 – whether subsequent judgment constitutes evidence as to matters which have occurred after the date of the trial or hearing – whether admission would be an affront to one's sense of fairness – Re China Fishery Group Ltd [2020] HKCA 169 – Hughes v Singh – PW v PPTW CACV 224/2013 – application to set aside worldwide Mareva injunction granted ex parte – whether real risk of dissipation – whether ex parte application inappropriate due to delay – whether abuse of process – independence of appellate review in evaluating evidence – comity of courts – persuasive common law authority distinguished from evidence. The plaintiffs obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction ex parte by L Chan J on 11 December 2017 against multiple defendants, which was set aside and discharged by Ng J on 22 May 2019 as against the 2nd, 5th and 13th Defendants on grounds of procedural abuse of process and no real risk of dissipation. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal and to adduce the Singapore Court of Appeal judgment (handed down 30 September 2019) which upheld a Mareva injunction obtained by the same plaintiffs against the 13th Defendant (Ms Bi Xiao Qiong) in Singapore on materially similar facts. The Court of Appeal (Lam VP and Au JA) held that the application to adduce the SGCA Judgment as further evidence must be dismissed: under the 1st Perspective, the SGCA Judgment is not evidence of any fact but merely an expression of opinion by the SGCA, and falls outside the scope of O.59 r.10(2) since it is not a relevant fact for the disposal of the appeal and would not have important influence on the outcome; under the 2nd Perspective, the argument that the application is not one to adduce further evidence fails in limine because the summons specifically sought relief for admitting further evidence on appeal. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' reliance on XY, LLC v Jesse Zhu [2017] 6 HKC 479 and Wei Xing v Willwin Development (Asia) Co Ltd [2017] HKCFI 680, both of which were distinguished. Application dismissed with no right to reconsideration at an oral hearing under O.59 r.2A(7)-(8); plaintiffs ordered to pay the 13th Defendant's costs of the application, with summary assessment in the sum of $100,000 under O.62 r.9A(1)(b).
Legal issues: Admissibility of foreign court judgment as further evidence on appeal under O.59 r.10(2) · Whether application can succeed on alternative basis that it is not one to adduce further evidence
Outcome: Application dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the 13th Defendant's costs of the application
Cited by 14 cases · Cites 4 cases