“Although Mr Liu of Counsel asserts that the alterations in question might not have been discovered even if an inspection had been done, the claimant bears the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities[. T]here is no direct evidence to support Mr Liu’s assertion. In my view, not even the proven evidence lends support to the argument in this regard; in particular, as Mr Yip has submitted, the alterations in question could have been discovered simply by visual inspection.”
Should read “Although Mr Liu of Counsel asserts that the alterations in question might not have been discovered even if an inspection had been done, the claimant bears the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities. There is no direct evidence to support Mr Liu’s assertion; and in my view, the proven evidence lends no support to the argument in this regard; in particular, as Mr Yip has submitted, the alterations in question could have been discovered simply by visual inspection”
(Ruby Wong)
Clerk to Deputy High Court Judge A Wong
21 November 2014
[Translated by the Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary]
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error