|
HCA 51/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 51 OF 2007
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
NG KWOK PIU PHILIP |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
CONFEDERATED ASSETS GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
WELL ARTS ENTERPRISES LIMITED |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
TO PUI KUI |
1st Defendant |
| |
NG KWOK TAI ANDREW |
2nd Defendant |
| |
NG YIU CHI ELEANOR |
3rd Defendant |
| |
NG SHEUNG MING ASSOCIATION LIMITED |
4th Defendant |
____________
AND
HCA 1040/2009
ACTION NO 1040 OF 2009
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
TO PUI KUI |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
NG KWOK TAI ANDREW |
3rd Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
| |
HULTUCKTONG COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
CONFEDERATED ASSETS GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
| |
WELL ARTS ENTERPRISES LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
| |
NG KWOK PIU PHILIP |
4th Defendant |
| |
NG OI CHE STEPHANIE |
5th Defendant |
| |
NG YIU CHI ELEANOR |
6th Defendant |
____________
AND
HCA 1041/2009
ACTION NO 1041 OF 2009
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
TO PUI KUI |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
NG KAY CHEE ANGELA |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
NG KWOK TAI ANDREW |
4th Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
| |
HULTUCKTONG COMPANY LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
CONFEDERATED ASSETS GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
| |
WELL ARTS ENTERPRISES LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
| |
NG KWOK PIU PHILIP |
4th Defendant |
| |
NG OI CHE STEPHANIE |
5th Defendant |
| |
NG YIU CHI ELEANOR |
6th Defendant |
____________
(Heard Together)
| Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 23 December 2014 |
| Date of Decision: 23 December 2014 |
_____________
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.
|
(Mimmie Chan)
|
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
|
High Court |
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
|