Chung Wah Steel Works Co Ltd v. Chan Kwong Kwan

DCCJ 4763/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4763 OF 2011

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.The plaintiff alleges that at the hearing on 27 March 2013, the defendant’s counsel made a concession on the following terms: “Amendment of the Defence by withdrawing the admission in paragraph 2 of the Defence only related to the issue as to the question of damages.”

2.Mr Siu for the defendant disputes that such a concession was made, but insofar as necessary, he applies for the concession to be withdrawn.

3.Ms Wong for the plaintiff opposed the application, and in the event that the application is allowed, she applies to re-open the re‑examination of Mr Wong Kin Keung.

4.On my part, I doubt very much if the alleged concession can be properly viewed as a concession by the defendant.  The amendment to the Defence, inter alia, expressly stated this:

“The Defendant has no direct knowledge regarding the actual legal status of the Plaintiff in occupying the Plaintiff’s Premises. In the premises, paragraph 1(b) is not admitted.”

By the amendment, the defendant has clearly put the plaintiff to proof on the “legal status” of the plaintiff’s occupation of the premises.  Whatever the defendant’s counsel might have said only goes to his interpretation of the amendment.

5.Furthermore, when the defendant’s counsel cross-examined Mr Wong Kin Keung, questions were asked which clearly went to the question of whether the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of Unit E15.  It is not disputed that Mr Wong gave, inter alia, the following evidence:

(a) If Mr Wong wished to enter workshop E15, he did not need to seek approval from the board of directors of the plaintiff.

(b) If Chung Wah Engineering Hong Kong Ltd had business affairs, Mr Wong could allow it to occupy Workshop E15 jointly with the plaintiff.

6.The plaintiff’s counsel never objected to this line of questioning, and the evidence is now before this court. 

7.In the circumstances, I think the fairest way to deal with the situation is for me to give leave to the defendant to withdraw the concession insofar as it is necessary to do so, and to fix another date to receive the further re-examination of Mr Wong.

Ms Emma Wong, instructed by K M Lai & Li, for the plaintiff.

Mr Stanley Siu, instructed by Deannie Yew and Associates, for the defendant.