Ng Kwok Piu Philip and Others v. To Pui Kui and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 51/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 December 2014.
1. It is true that discovery is a continuing obligation. However, since the CJR, the courts have endeavoured to make it clear to the parties that the court will not condone late discovery made at the commencement of trial, or at the eve of trial. The CJR introduced measures to ensure early preparation for trial by the parties and the court will rarely exercise its discretion to admit late documents or late evidence, in the absence of exceptional circumstances or unless good reasons exist to allo
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 51/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 51 OF 2007 ____________
____________ AND HCA 1040/2009 ACTION NO 1040 OF 2009 ____________
____________ AND HCA 1041/2009 ACTION NO 1041 OF 2009 ____________
____________ (Heard Together)
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.It is true that discovery is a continuing obligation. However, since the CJR, the courts have endeavoured to make it clear to the parties that the court will not condone late discovery made at the commencement of trial, or at the eve of trial. The CJR introduced measures to ensure early preparation for trial by the parties and the court will rarely exercise its discretion to admit late documents or late evidence, in the absence of exceptional circumstances or unless good reasons exist to allow the late production to ensure the just resolution of the dispute. 2.In this case, the background of which I have set out in my earlier decision of 6 March 2014 and will not repeat here, no good reason has been advanced by Philip’s camp as to why the late disclosure of the Trust Documents should be permitted for inclusion in the evidence for the trial in January 2015. Oversight, distraction by other developments in court, are not good reasons. A mere reminder of the relevant dates should adequately explain the unjustified delay. The Actions were set down in September 2011, for trial to commence in September 2012 as originally envisaged, pursuant to an order for consolidation made in September 2010. The last 2 hearings before me took place in February and October 2014. 3.In any event, Philip’s camp accept that the Trust Documents are not of primary importance and do not directly relate to the issues to be resolved at the trial. Discovery of documents will only be ordered if they are necessary. I am not satisfied that the Trust Documents are necessary for determination of the remaining issues to be dealt with in January 2015 and at this very late stage, further discovery will not be permitted. 4.The application for discovery is refused, with costs.
Ms Teresa Cheng SC and Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by S Cheng & Yeung, for the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs in HCA 51/2007 Ms Teresa Cheng SC and Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by S Cheng & Yeung, for the 1st to 5th defendants in HCA 1040/2009 Mr Teresa Cheng SC and Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by S Cheng & Yeung, for the 1st to 5th defendants in HCA 1041/2009 Mr Vincent Lung, instructed by Vremeli Chan & Co, for the 1st and 4th defendants in HCA 51/2007 Mr Vincent Lung, instructed by Vremeli Chan & Co, for the 1st plaintiff in HCA 1040/2009 Mr Vincent Lung, instructed by Vremeli Chan & Co, for the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs in HCA 1041/2009 Mr Ronald Tang and Mr Jerome Liu, instructed by Wong Poon Chan Law Co, for the 3rd defendant in HCA 51/2007 Mr Ronald Tang and Mr Jerome Liu, instructed by Wong Poon Chan Law Co, for the 6th defendant in HCA 1040/2009 Mr Ronald Tang and Mr Jerome Liu, instructed by Wong Poon Chan Law Co, for the 6th defendant in HCA 1041/2009 The 2nd defendant in HCA 51/2007, the 3rd plaintiff in HCA 1040/2009, and the 4th plaintiff in HCA 1041/2009 (Mr Ng Kwok Tai Andrew) appeared in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 51/2007