Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA 1583/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1583 OF 2008

_________________________

BETWEEN

	MAJORETTE HONG KONG LIMITED	Plaintiff
	And
	FULLMORE CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant

_________________________

HCA 1599/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1599 OF 2008

_________________________

BETWEEN

	SIMBA-TOYS (HONG KONG) LIMITED	Plaintiff
	And
	FULLMORE CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant

_________________________

Coram : Before Master K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 23 June 2010

Date of Reasons for Decision : 23 June 2010

____________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

____________________________

1.HCA 1583/2008 and HCA 1599/2008 have been ordered to be tried by the same judge. The defendant in HCA 1583/2008 has taken out a summons for leave to adduce expert evidence at the trial, which the plaintiff opposes on the ground that the expert evidence intended to be produced is irrelevant to the issues for the trial.

2.In the summons the defendant intends to adduce expert evidence on the following issues:

(1)

the nature and legal status of Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited under PRC law;

(2)

the PRC legal framework in relation to the management of Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited;

(3)

the relationship between Fullmore Corporation Limited and Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited, particularly in relation to whether Fullmore Corporation Limited is liable for the liabilities of Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited.

3.The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in this action is for the return of the toys moulds delivered to Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited, which is wholly owned by the defendant, under an agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently said that the defendant was in breach of the agreement and demanded the return of the moulds delivered to Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited.

4.The defendant’s defence to this claim is that the moulds were delivered to Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited, not the defendant and the defendant is not in possession of the moulds in question. Those are the reasons that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for the moulds.

5.I have asked Mr. Yan, the handling solicitor of the defendant’s case whether the defendant has raised the issue that the moulds that the plaintiff delivered to Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited was under another agreement between the plaintiff and Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited. Mr. Yan says that the defendant does not raise this defence in the Defence. Mr. Yan has also said that the defendant does not say that the plaintiff had delivered the moulds to Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited by mistake.

6.On the pleadings and submissions from the solicitors before me today, I accept Mr. Hanusch’s argument that the intended expert evidence is not relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties. Mr. Hanusch further submits that the plaintiff has never disputed that Fullmore Products (Shenzhen) Limited is a separate legal entity from the defendant, which is not an issue in the pleadings.

7.The burden is on the defendant to show that the intended expert evidence is relevant to the issues in dispute. The defendant is unable to show even a prima facie case in support of his application. I dismiss the summons with costs. There is another summons for the same application taken out by the defendant for HCA 1599/2008. For the same reason, I dismiss the summons for HCA 1599/2008 as well.

8.As to costs of these applications, Mr. Yan has no objection to Mr. Hanusch’s proposal of $1,200.00 for each case, totally $2,400.00 to be paid by the defendant within 14 days from the date hereof. I so order.