Read the full judgment text of HCCW 594/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 November 2003 before Hon Chu J.
Civil procedure – case management – winding-up petition – sequential trials – extension of time – witness statements – expert reports – costs – Companies Ordinance (Cap.32) – family dispute over The Prudential Enterprise Limited – three related proceedings: HCCW 594/1999, HCA 1240/2001 and HCA 4225/2001 (Blue Pool Road action) – whether the 6th Defendant in HCA 4225/2001 (Andrew Ma & Company, a firm) should be granted further extensions of time for exchange of witness statements and expert reports, where prior extensions had been granted and an order for sequential trial was made in August 2003 with the first trial fixed for 17 November 2003 – court held that the trial date and sequential trial order were immovable milestones in case management terms, and other matters must be worked around them unless cogent and very good reasons exist – court adopted a two-stage approach accommodating D6's genuine difficulties without disturbing the trial milestones, with drafts to be served by 10 November 2003 and final versions by 8 December 2003, a four-week period from the drafts – whether the trial date of 17 November 2003 was an immovable milestone – court held yes, as preserving the trial date fixed long before and preserving the integrity of court directions and orders is the starting point in case management, though a two-day deferral to 19 November 2003 was allowed to enable respondents to study the Opening – whether D6's decision not to participate in the Petition trial but to seek recall of witnesses at subsequent trials was permissible – court held that the possibility of recalling witnesses cannot be ruled out by an order for sequential trials, but witnesses are not to be recalled irrespective of need, and savings of time and costs remain a primary objective, with the court reserving the right to visit unnecessary or tactical manoeuvres with costs consequences – costs of the directions hearing – court ordered that the costs of the hearings on 3 and 4 November 2003 be borne by D6 in any event in favour of the plaintiffs, the 2nd to 5th defendants, and the 2nd third party in HCA 4225/2001, on the basis that the only reason for assembling for the two afternoons was D6's summons and its indications about difficulties and reservations, and had D6's realistic proposals come earlier, the hearing or its duration might have been unnecessary – outcome: application for further extensions granted in part on a two-stage basis; trial date deferred by two days from 17 to 19 November 2003; costs of the directions hearing ordered against D6 in any event.
Legal issues: Whether to grant D6 further extensions of time for exchange of witness statements and expert reports · Whether the trial date of 17 November 2003 is an immovable milestone for case management · Costs of the directions hearing occasioned by D6's summons and conduct
Outcome: Application for further extensions of time granted in part on a two-stage basis; trial date deferred by two days from 17 to 19 November 2003; costs of the directions hearing ordered against D6 in any event.
Cited by 36 cases