Read the full judgment text of HCCT 60/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 September 2013 before Hon G Lam J in Chambers.
Civil procedure — Expert evidence — Admissibility of late expert report sections — Pleadings — Amendment and withdrawal of admission — Common parts of building — The plaintiff sought leave to rely on the expert report of Mr Cheung Wai-sum dated August 2013, particularly regarding remedial methods proposed for structural defects in the Wing Ming Industrial Centre. The court found that detailed new remedial proposals constituted new evidence improperly filed late, and only allowed reliance on updated physical observations portion. The plaintiff also sought to withdraw an admission in its pleadings concerning sales of 'void areas' later held to be common parts by Reyes J. The court held that withdrawal of admission required a proper explanatory affirmation, which was not provided, and thus refused such leave. Various other amendments to the plaintiff’s re-amended reply and defence to counterclaim were considered; consequential amendments required no further leave and were permitted, while non-consequential amendments were allowed if implicit or consistent with previous pleadings. The court’s orders balanced fairness between parties given the imminence of trial on 2 October 2013.
Legal issues: Admissibility of expert report on remedial measures · Withdrawal of admission in pleadings · Allowance of amendments to pleadings
Outcome: Plaintiff granted leave to rely on parts of expert report excluding remedial measures; leave to withdraw admission refused without proper explanation; various amendments to pleadings allowed as detailed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases