Daimler Ag (Formerly Mercedes Benz Ag) v. Leiduck, Herbert Heinz Horst and Another

HCA 4089/1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4089 OF 1994

____________

__________

R U L I N G

__________

1.The trial was directed by the Court of Appeal in early May 2012 to take place on 4 February 2013. Parties then proceeded diligently to prepare their case on the evidence. After the exchange of evidence was completed, the plaintiff administered interrogatories of 41 items comprising 170 questions on the defendants which were served on them on 18 December 2012. After due consideration by both sides, the items were reduced to 31, comprising 151 questions.

2.The trial is on fraud and the determination is on whether an inquiry should be held to determine the amount of damages suffered by the defendants as a result of an injunction obtained by the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant in 1994. 

3.Neither party has been guilty of any delay in preparing their case and the interrogatories have not been administered belatedly.  However, bearing in mind the complexity and length of the trial which will take 16 days, a lot of preparation will have to be undertaken by the legal team for the defendants.  If the interrogatories are to be answered, they will require an immense amount of work to be done by the defence team to take instructions from the witnesses who are all in Germany.

4.I would add that there will also be an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal on the 24th of this month that the parties will have to prepare for.  To require the interrogatories to be answered now will certainly prejudice the defendants so that they will be hampered in preparing their case for the trial.  I would refrain from doing so not on the merits of the interrogatories themselves but because it is too late to require them to be answered.

5.Since neither party is guilty of delay and there is no finding on the merits of the interrogatories, I make no order of costs on the defendants’ application for the withdrawal of the interrogatories as well.

Mr John Yan, SC and Miss Sara Tong, instructed by Baker & McKenzie, for the plaintiff

Mr Horace Wong, SC and Mr Clark Wang, instructed by Robertsons, for the 1st and 2nd defendants