ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER

HCAP 13/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO 13 OF 2010

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

__________________

RULING

__________________

1.  Now, I have considered counsel’s submissions. There is substantial delay on the part of the plaintiffs in obtaining the legal opinion on China law that they now want to adduce.

2.  I note that this is a retrial.  The first trial took place, I am told, in July 2013.  After appeal, a retrial was ordered on 8 January 2016.  The validity of the copy will rely upon by the plaintiff was in issue in the first trial.  That means the plaintiffs should have been aware that it would also be an important issue in the coming retrial, which is less than a month ahead.

3.  Based on what I have been told by Ms Chan, counsel for the plaintiffs, they had not asked for the legal opinion on Chinese law until 6 January this year, and they received it on 23 February 2017 which was almost one and a half month later.  However, they did not see fit to inform the other side about that the legal opinion and their intention to rely on it in the coming retrial until 18 March 2017.  The summons seeking to produce the legal opinion on China law only came yesterday, that is 22 March 2017.

4.  Mr Cheung, counsel for the 1^st defendant, informed the court that the defendant had not retained any China law expert for the retrial.  Therefore, they would not be able to obtain an opinion on China law in reply before trial.  In fact, they have not even identified any China law expert.

5.  Given the circumstances, the delay was caused solely by the plaintiffs without good reasons.  Moreover, it is obvious that if leave is to be granted to the plaintiff for the introduction of the legal opinion on China law which they now seek to adduce, the trial will have to be adjourned.

6.  In view of the spirit of the CJR, trial dates are milestone dates which are not to be moved lightly without very cogent reasons.  The retrial is fixed for four days.

7.  The issue or the subject matter of the trial is the administration of the estate of the deceased who died in 2005 which was almost 12 years ago.  Any further delay is simply unsatisfactory.  The plaintiffs have failed to give any good reasons for the tardiness/omission on their part. 

8.  In the circumstances, I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant leave to the plaintiff.  The plaintiffs’ summons dated 22 March 2017 is dismissed with costs.

9.  Costs be to the 1^st Defendant to be taxed if not agreed (with certificate of counsel).  The 1^st Defendant’s costs are to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.