Winford (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Ricacorp Properties Ltd

HCA2481/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2481 OF 2008

________________________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 22 June 2010

Date of Ruling: 22 June 2010

____________

R U L I N G

____________

1.I think there comes a time when inactivity by a party, in this case the plaintiff, needs to be addressed, and what has happened here is that the solicitors for the plaintiff have very late in the day gone to Miss Tong.  Initially, she tells me, in December where her instructions were very limited to just providing an estimate of the length of the trial which really is a curious way of going about it just to instruct counsel on that rather limited basis, and she did her best and provided an estimate.

2.Prior to that a listing questionnaire had been answered by the parties in which, amongst other things, the plaintiff’s solicitors had indicated that there would be no need to call expert evidence.

3.An attempt was made to settle through mediation, again in about December last year.  That failed to produce the hoped result and so the matter was allowed to slide until some time last week when Miss Tong was instructed to try and get hold of the case, if I can put it in that way, and give it some order and structure.  And it is the result of her excellent advice that this summons has now been taken out and it involves a number of, it seems to me, fairly important matters, including the joinder of Mr Chan.  If that is to be allowed that means Mr Chan would, on the present time scale, have two months to deal with his preparation for trial which is currently scheduled to start on 16 August. 

4.Additionally, it is suggested that the pleadings will need to be amended, not only to accommodate the fact that there is an application to join Mr Chan, but also to make some other amendments relating to the quantification of the loss, contrary to what the questionnaire had indicated.

5.Miss Tong has advised the calling of expert evidence and I am asked to allow for that.  She has also advised that three of the witnesses should provide supplemental witness statements to put the matter in proper order.  And all of this against the background of the case having been listed for trial some time ago now, since when the trial date has been known.  Nothing very much has happened, it strikes me, between December and earlier this month when Miss Tong was formally instructed to look at the case properly for the first occasion.

6.Unsurprisingly, Mr Shipp takes the sharpest objection to all of this and his submission is that if I were to extend these indulgences, this is what they would be, indulgences to the plaintiff, then he would require the case to be adjourned.  Miss Tong, I think, realistically says, “Well, if that’s to happen, it goes without saying really that the defendant would need to be compensated for the costs thrown away.”

7.But I have got a more important function which really also relates to the general administration of justice.  This case was set down some time ago, it was no doubt, in a queue of cases, in what is an already overcrowded list, and if the case were to go from the list, it may be that something else would be provided for me to deal with on those dates in August, and I expect there would be, but the trial then would not come on for another year, I would have thought, because the scope of the trial would be bigger, there would be expert evidence and it might well take more than the present 4 days to hear, and I think that is highly likely because there will be Mr Chan who would also be a party and he would be dealing with the matter in his particular way.

8.And all of this against the background now and a culture which has been brought in by the new Civil Justice reforms that dictate that people should really concentrate on the timetable and on being ready and getting pleadings in and ready earlier and witness statements in proper order in good time.  Miss Tong has done her very best and submitted that there is no prejudice to the Defendant and nothing that cannot be compensated for in costs.

9.But it strikes me that this is really now far too late and it is precisely against this sort of conduct that these reforms are aimed at.  And so despite Miss Tong’s best efforts, it strikes me that I should not allow any of the matters that are raised in the summons.  So all of Miss Tong’s applications must stand dismissed.  The case will now proceed on its pleadings as they currently stand and the trial date will be held. 

COURT:  Very well. Presumably, Mr Shipp, you want the costs...

MR SHIPP:  Yes.

COURT:  ...of today in any event.

MR SHIPP:  Yes, my Lord.

COURT:  Yes, you can have those. 

Sara Tong, instructed by Messrs Kok & Ha for the Plaintiff

Colin Shipp, instructed by Messrs Terry Yeung & Lai for the  Defendant