Lo Wo and Others v. Cheung Chan Ka Joseph and Another

HCA000618/1997

HCA 618/97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

____________

____________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 26 August 1999

Date of Delivery of Decision: 26 August 1999

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. This is the pre-trial review of an action which will be starting in a couple of weeks' time. One of the matters in issue before me this morning at this pre-trial review is whether leave ought to be granted to the 2nd Defendant to adduce expert evidence in the form of a valuation report which was made by a firm of valuers named Larry Tam & Associates in March 1995.

2. Mr. Chong for the 2nd Defendant says that this is relevant to the issue as to what was the market value of the property at the time of the agreement which was made in July of 1993.

3. Mr. Remedios for the Plaintiff has objected to leave being granted on two grounds. The first is that it is irrelevant because of the difference in the dates. The second point that Mr. Remedios has taken is that the report does not contain any information on which the valuer relied when he came to his opinion as to the value of the property. Mr. Remedios also says that if leave were to be granted, there would be delay because he might want to have an expert valuation as well.

4. Mr. Chong in reply says that the difference in dates (albeit nearly two years) would only go to the issue of the weight of the expert evidence rather than admissibility.

5. In my view, in relation to Mr. Remedios' two points, his first point as to the substantial difference in the dates does go to relevance to the issue. Since it is entirely irrelevant to the issue, there is no reason why this evidence should be admitted at all. The second point, in my view, deals with weight because it may be said that an expert remains an expert even though he does not put in his comparables in the report.

6. In my judgment, the difference in the dates (being July 1993 and March 1995) is so substantial that I really cannot see the relevance of this expert report to the issues before me. Therefore, I do not consider that leave ought to be granted.

Representation:

Mr. Leo Remedios, instructed by Tsang Chow & Shuen for Plaintiffs

Mr. Ernest C.M. Koo, instructed by K.W. Lai & Co. for 1st Defendant

Mr. K.M. Chong, instructed by K.M. Lai & Li for 2nd Defendant