Formalex Limited v. Abdoolally Ebrahim & Co. (HK) Ltd.

DCCJ14886/2000

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14886 OF 2000

______________________

R U L I N G

______________________

1. The matter comes about in this way: the defendant seeks to call Mr Carlos Chan who is one of the principals of Splendor Air-con Services Limited, who over a number of years now have been servicing the air-conditioning system at the premises which relate to this action.

2. The plaintiff's expert, Mr Patrick Chow, having looked amongst other things at the service contract between the defendant and Splendor Air-con Services Limited has given evidence to the effect that the price charged for these services, the most recent being $6,800, is so low, and relatively speaking, so out of line with the current market rate that the nature of the works which are being provided under that service contract are quite inadequate to give proper service to this air-conditioning system. So that is an important piece of evidence.

3. Now, on what is the fourth day of the trial, Mr Nasir, who appears for the defendants, wishes to call Mr Carlos Chan to give evidence, amongst other things, about the nature of the works offered under the service contract and no doubt to try and justify, if he can, the relatively speaking, low price charged for these services. Mr Chiu, who appears for the plaintiffs, not unreasonably, objects. He says they have had plenty of time to do this. They have been aware of this point because so much appears in Mr Patrick Chow's witness statement, which is in dated March this year. The point has also been pleaded and it is simply not right on the fourth day of what had originally been listed as a three day trial to bring the witness along to deal with these points. I think there is a lot of force in this.

4. But I have decided that I will allow Mr Chan to give evidence, but just limited to that point. The reason for my decision is that I take the view that there is no evidential prejudice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been able to call evidence itself on this point and although there is no witness statement from Mr Carlos Chan, much of this area is covered in the documents and I am going to allow him to do that. So that is the limit of it.

5. If Mr Chiu wishes for an adjournment to deal with any of these points, if that arises, then I shall consider any application for an adjournment and I would have thought that the costs occasioned by that adjournment would inevitably have to be borne by the defendant, but that is another matter which may not arise and I hope does not arise.