Read the full judgment text of HCA 10670/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 June 2007 before Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan.
Civil practice – expert evidence – admissibility – leave to adduce further expert report – boundary dispute – Lot No. 1212 in DD 115, Yuen Long, granted by public auction on 6 July 1916 with registered area of 18 acres – plaintiffs claim northern boundary is a curvilinear line that would include an additional 6.7 acres of 'discrepant parts' making the Lot 37% larger than registered – whether the King/Nichol report on 1924 aerial photographs should be admitted to prove intent of grant and survey accuracy – whether the report should be admitted to support the plea of proprietary estoppel – expert evidence must be relevant to a disputed issue – Ko Chi Keung v Lee Ping Yan [2001] 1 HKLRD 829 applied – discretion to exclude clearly irrelevant expert evidence before trial to save time and costs – chain of reasoning based on speculation that 1916 intended boundary coincided with limits of mangrove canopy and that 1916 surveyor made sizeable under-measurement error unsupported by evidence – leave refused for the first point as speculation upon speculation – defendant conceded the discrepant parts were dug up and used as fishponds so the pre-existing vegetation cover (mangrove or otherwise) is not in dispute – leave refused for the second point as the report does not assist in resolving any live issue – New Territories Ordinance (Cap.97) – costs order nisi that plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the application – Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan – HCA 10670/2000 – 18 June 2007.
Legal issues: Admissibility of further expert report for proving intent of grant and survey accuracy · Admissibility of further expert report for the plea of proprietary estoppel
Outcome: Leave to adduce the King/Nichol expert report refused; costs order nisi made against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant.
Cites 1 case