PAI CHIN MING AND ANOTHER v. LUO XIAO AND ANOTHER

HCA 2693/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2693 OF 2006

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The Writ of Summons in this action was issued on 4 December 2006.  The Summons to strike out was issued by the Defendants on 12 February 2007.  The Summons by the Plaintiffs to amend the Statement of Claim was issued on 15 May 2007, and the hearing before Master S Kwang took place on 17 May 2007.

2.  The Notice of Appeal against the Master’s Decision was lodged by the Plaintiffs on 30 May 2007.  The Statement of Claim which Master S Kwang had to consider on 17 May 2007 was quite different from the Statement of Claim, i.e., the finalised version of the Statement of Claim before me now, which was only produced by Counsel for the Defendants this morning on my direction.

3.  The 2^nd Affirmation of the Plaintiff, Mr Pai Chin Ming, was only filed and served late on 12 June 2007, one day before the hearing.  It is a very substantial affirmation and there are produced a lot of new documents.  I made an order yesterday allowing the 2^nd Affirmation of Mr Pai to be admitted in evidence, despite the objection of Counsel for the Defendants.  At that stage, Counsel for the Defendants, Ms Sit, did not ask for an adjournment because, as she explained, the 2^nd Affirmation of Mr Pai only set out certain background information relating to the claim regarding the agreement which is described by Counsel for the Plaintiffs as the “2000 Purported Agreement”.

4.  Ms Sit this morning has applied for an adjournment to enable her clients to file evidence in reply to the 2^nd Affirmation of Mr Pai on the basis that the latest version of the Statement of Claim has now included various matters referred to in the 2^nd Affirmation of Mr Pai as part of the cause of action against the Defendants.  It is in those circumstances that she now believes that an adjournment is required and a reply to that evidence is equally required.

5.  In all the circumstances, in my judgment, it is only fair that the Defendants should be given an opportunity to deal with the latest evidence adduced by Mr Pai and to deal with the latest version of the Statement of Claim.

6.  In view of the fact that a lot of new materials and new documents have been disclosed, I will allow the Defendants to put in evidence in response to be filed and served within 21 days.

7.  In such circumstances, there is no alternative but for me to adjourn this case to another day to be fixed in consultation with Counsel’s diaries.

8.  I order that the costs of the hearing yesterday (13 June 2007) be reserved.  The costs thrown away by the adjournment be to the Defendants in any event.