China Everbright - Ihd Pacific Ltd. v. Ch'Ng Poh and Others and Low Chang Hian and Others (Third Party)

Case No.

Court

Date16 Oct 1998

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA012837A/1995

HCA No. 12837/95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

____________

BETWEEN
	CHINA EVERBRIGHT - IHD PACIFIC LIMITED	Plaintiff

	AND

	CH'NG POH KONG YUK CHU AVON INVESTMENTS LIMITED KATAYORK COMPANY LIMITED MARC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ROBLEX COMPANY LIMITED SILVERFAX LIMITED WORLD CRYSTLE COMPANY LIMITED WORLD KOON COMPANY LIMITED TRADELUCK ENTERPRISES LIMITED NETWORK NOMINEES LIMITED SKYDAR INVESTMENT LIMITED JOIN PARK LIMITED	1st Defendant 2nd Defendant 3rd Defendant 4th Defendant 5th Defendant 6th Defendant 7th Defendant 8th Defendant 9th Defendant 10th Defendant 11th Defendant 12th Defendant 13th Defendant
	and

	LOW CHANG HIAN QUEK TECK HUAT CHEW KAM MENG YONG POH CHOO, DOREEN NGAI SHIU KIT	1st Third Party 2nd Third Party 3rd Third Party 4th Third Party 5th Third Party

____________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 16 October 1998

Date of Decision: 16 October 1998

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This is a pre-trial review of the trial which still start on Monday 12th October. A number of matters have been raised this morning.

2. The first deals with the evidence to be heard and there seems to be no dispute among the parties that all the evidence would be heard in one go, as it were, including any Third Party evidence.

3. The second matter relates to the Third Party's application to strike out the Third Party Statement of Claim. The issue is when that is to be heard.

4. A letter was written by the Third Party's solicitors on 15th October to the Defendant and if the Practice Direction is to be complied with, that should give the Defendant 5 working days to consider its position, which would take us to 21st October being the Wednesday and the third day of the trial. What Mr. Strachan, leading counsel for the 1st Defendant, suggests is that the matter should be heard on 20th October after the Plaintiff's opening; that would give him less than 5 days but he thinks that that would be enough. Mr. Griffiths has suggested that it should be heard before he opens but I think to be fair to Mr. Strachan and his team, given the lateness with which this application to strike out the Third Party Statement of Claim has been issued, I would direct that that application be heard after the Plaintiff's opening and probably that will be on 20th October 1998.

5. In relation to the third point which is when the expert evidence should be dealt with, I will not make a decision now until after Mr. Griffiths opens and that does not seem to be disputed by anyone.

6. In relation to a further matter which is the Third Party's witness statement, an order had been made by the master for witness statements to be exchanged on 7th October, so the 5th Third Party is late and they are asking for an extension of time to 21st October which is immediately the day after the hearing of the application to strike out.

7. What I would be prepared to do is to extend the time for the filing of the witness statement to that date. However, if as a result of the receipt on the 21st of that witness statement, if Mr. Strachan wants to have time off, so to speak, before his witness goes into the box on 22nd, I would be prepared to accede to any application for further time to consider the contents of the witness statement if one is to be exchanged should I find against Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Lee on their application to strike out.

8. [The costs of today are to be in the cause].

	(MARIA YUEN)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

Representation:

Mr. John Griffiths, S.C. & Russell Coleman instructed by M/s. Richards Butler for Plaintiff

Mr. M. Strachan, Q.C. & Anthony Chan instructed by Dixon Tang & Co. for 1st Defendant

Mr. Lee Siu Ho instructed by M/s. Lee & Chow for 5th Third Party