Chan Hon, The Administrator of the Estate of Poon Lai Ming, Deceased v. Bayer Healthcare Ltd Formerly Known As Bayer Diagnostics Ltd and Formerly Known As Bayer Diagnostics Ltd and Formerly Known As Chiron Ltd and Formerly Known As Ciba Corning Diagnostics (H.K.) Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 53/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 31 December 2020 before Lam VP, Cheung JA.

Outcome: {"disposition": "", "orders": [], "sentencing_math": ""}

Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 53/2020[2020] HKCA 1090
Court
Court of Appeal
Date31 Dec 2020
JudgeLam VP, Cheung JA
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 53/2020

[2020] HKCA 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCPI NO. 32 OF 2016)

________________________

BETWEEN

CHAN HON,
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF POON LAI MING, DECEASED

Plaintiff

and

BAYER HEALTHCARE LIMITED
(拜耳醫療保健有限公司)
formerly known as
BAYER DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED
(拜耳診斷產品有限公司) and
formerly known as
BAYER DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED and formerly known as CHIRON LIMITED
(康仁(香港)有限公司) and
formerly known as CIBA CORNING DIAGNOSTICS (H.K.) LIMITED
(汽巴康寧(香港)有限公司)

1st Defendant

BAYER WEIMAR GMBH UND CO. KG (formerly known as SCHERING GMBH UND CO. PRODUKTIONS KG, WEIMAR and formerly known as
GEHE MEDICA PRODUKTIONSGESELLSCHAFT MBH & CO., KG, WEIMAR)

2nd Defendant

BAYER PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
(formerly known as
BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, BERLIN
and formerly known as SCHERING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, BERLIN)

3rd Defendant

________________________

Before : Hon Lam VP and Cheung JA in Court
Date of Corrigendum : 1 February 2021

________________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

________________________

The following parts of the Judgment dated 31 December 2020 are to be corrected and read as follows :-

1.At page 34 :-

“ 5.27 Two reasons were advanced by the plaintiff for the second extension. First, the concurrent writ of summons with the general endorsement on the writ was required to be translated into German for the purpose of service out and the approval of the Director of Legal Aid was required before this task could be undertaken. Second, it would take time to serve the concurrent writ of summons outside jurisdiction. The estimated time for this process was four to five months.”

2.At page 36 :-

“5.32 The procedural timeframe of this case must be considered in such a context. Even if, for the purpose of argument, the translation of the concurrent writ of summons should be obtained earlier and the concurrent writ of summons together with the translation could be supplied to the High Court Registry …”


Dated this 1st day of February 2021

  (Vivian Ho)
  for Registrar, High Court