Read the full judgment text of CACV 000021/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 July 2008 before 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長鄧國楨, 高等法院原訟法庭法官鍾安德, 高等法院原訟法庭法官張舉能.
Civil Appeal – New Evidence – Condition Precedent – Custody Order – Commitment Letter – Retrial – The Plaintiff, Lin Tianzhi, appealed against the District Court judgment which dismissed his claim for RMB 680,000 based on a commitment letter signed by the Defendant, Chen Hongbo, in 2001. The parties had a business relationship involving a joint venture in Fujian. The Defendant argued that repayment was conditional on obtaining custody of the Plaintiff's daughter, Lin Xiaoxia, following their divorce proceedings. The District Court found for the Defendant, accepting his testimony that custody was a condition precedent. The Plaintiff appealed and sought to adduce a custody order from Family Court proceedings as new evidence. The Court of Appeal considered whether the custody order could be admitted as new evidence under Ladd v Marshall principles. The Court held that the new evidence was not admissible as the Plaintiff could have obtained it earlier and it did not significantly affect the outcome as the Defendant's withdrawal of custody claim was due to judicial pressure. The Court also found the District Court's finding on the condition precedent was not tenable given the burden of proof and credibility issues regarding previous IOUs written by the Defendant. The Court noted that the Defendant had written similar IOUs before the commitment letter, making the sudden condition less credible. The Court emphasized that the Defendant bore the burden of proving the condition precedent. Appeal allowed; original judgment set aside; case remitted for retrial; costs reserved
Legal issues: Admissibility of new evidence · Sufficiency of evidence for condition precedent
Outcome: Appeal allowed; original judgment set aside; case remitted for retrial
Cites 1 case