Read the full judgment text of HCA 018029/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 March 2001 before Chung J.
Civil procedure – expert evidence – admissibility – jurisdiction of court at interlocutory stage – RHC O.38 r.36 – whether Master or Judge in Chambers can rule on relevance and admissibility of expert evidence before trial – appeal from Master's grant of leave to adduce expert evidence – written agreement for accounting and financial services in connection with fund-raising and listing of company on Hong Kong Stock Exchange – whether court has inherent jurisdiction to determine admissibility of expert evidence – Plaintiff's proposed expert evidence on what occurs to shareholdings on floatation and on calculation of Plaintiff's share entitlement – Amended Statement of Claim setting out percentages of shareholding and trustee arrangements – Court follows Woodford and Ackroyd v Burgess on existence of jurisdiction but rejects the artificial distinction between pre-trial review hearings and other interlocutory hearings – discretion to be exercised where relevance is clear and obvious – Sullivan v West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and Bown v Gould & Swayne considered – proposed expert evidence on shareholding practices of other companies held not to be a matter of expertise and irrelevant to pleaded issues – proposed calculation of Plaintiff's share entitlement capable of being worked out by the Court from pleadings and materials at trial without expert assistance – appeal allowed – Master's order set aside – Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce expert evidence dismissed.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction to rule on admissibility of expert evidence at interlocutory hearings · Relevance of proposed expert evidence on shareholding and floatation matters
Outcome: Appeal allowed; the Master's order of 31 October 2000 is set aside and the Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce expert evidence is dismissed.