Solomo Waknine and Another v. Ming Cheung Manufacturing and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

NO. 3656 OF 1983

--------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------

Coram : The Hon. Mr. Justice Jackson-Lipkin in Court.

Date of Hearing : 4th and 5th February 1985.

Date of Decision : 5th February 1985 at 11.05 a.m.

-------------------------------------

REASONS FOR DECISION

-------------------------------------

1. This action was adjourned at the end of the Michaelmas Term of 1983, at which time Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants was cross-examining the 1st Plaintiff.

2. Mr. Yu was not before me when the action was restored yesterday, a date chosen “in agreement with Counsel”. He appeared before me to-day to give his explanation as to why he is engaged in another matter before Deputy Judge Nazareth, Q.C.

3. I have had to consider the following applications made, or required:-

1. By the Plaintiffs:

(a) to re-amend their Statement of Claim;

(b) to amend their Reply;

(c) to lodge a Supplemental List of Documents out of time;

(d) to lodge a Further Supplemental List of Documents out of time;

(e) for time to allow Counsel to take further instructions from the 1st Plaintiff on his further Discovery and the new documents brought or sent from New York.

2. By the Defendants:

(a) to amend their Defence;

(b) to serve a Request for Further and Better Particulars of the Re-amended Statement of Claim;

(c) to lodge a Supplemental List of Documents out of time.

3. By the Plaintiffs:

(a) to incorporate some of the Further and Better Particulars requested in their re-amended Statement of Claim;

(b) for time to serve the remaining Further and Better Particulars qua Further and Better Particulars pursuant to the Request mentioned in paragraph 2(b) hereof, if the same be permitted.

4. By the Official Receiver to be informed:

(a) exactly what documents his Department is expected by parties to produce to me under the joint subpoena duces tecum;

(b) what questions are proposed by the parties to be put to his Department under the joint subpoena ad testificandum.

5. By both Counsel:

(a) for time to prepare an agreed list of questions and of documents, for the Official Receiver;

(b) for 12 hearing days instead of the 5 originally requested for the adjourned hearing.

6. By the Official Receiver:

(a) for several weeks’ grace to deal with 5 (a) for the very good reasons given by him (which can be found from in the transcript of the proceedings yesterday - if such be required.)

7. By the Plaintiffs:

(a) that the evidence of the 1st Plaintiff be resumed and that, at the end thereof, the action be further adjourned to dates again to be fixed in agreement with counsel.

4. Following the example set by my brother Mantell, I treated 1 (a) - (e), 2 (a) to (c), 3 (a) to (b), 5 (a) to (b) and 7 as an application to vacate the hearing date, whether taken jointly or severally, and, having done so, I granted such application and ordered that the hearing be resumed on 7th May with 12 days reserved. If it should over-run again then, so be it - something else in my List will have to be put back or sent to another Judge.

5. With regard to 5 (b), I should add that I am appalled that, after an adjournment of 14 months, it should be only on the day of the adjourned hearing that the Court was notified that the alloted days were considered by both Counsel to be an under-estimate by more than 100% - and that after two interlocutory hearings concerning hearing dates - that is, in February and November 1984.

6. With regard to 7, I feel that I should repeat what I said to Counsel on Tuesday: I have to take “two bites” at this particular “cherry” due to circumstances beyond the control of any of us: But I am not prepared to take three bites at it - it is bad enough taking two. Furthermore, Mr. Waknine, the 1st Plaintiff, will have to return for such third “bite” in any event, to instruct his lawyers on the evidence to be given by or on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and, possibly also, by the Official Receiver.

7. For all these reasons, the hearing is adjourned to 7th May 1985 - there will be liberty to all parties, and to the Official Receiver, to apply on 2 clear days’ notice in writing should those days prove in certain events to be unsuitable.

Solicitors:    Johnson, Stokes and Master for the Plaintiffs.

Robert W.H. Wang & Co. for the Defendants.