JIANG WEIMIN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG GAOQI BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 599/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 599 OF 2023

_______________________

______________________

______________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.  This is a last-minute application made by Summons filed on 29 July 2026 by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents (the “Summons”) for leave to adduce and rely on the documents in their 3^rd Supplemental List of Documents filed on 29 June 2026.  The parties filed and served evidence in relation to the Summons, and exchanged written submissions on 31 July 2026.

2.  The PTR hearing took place on 2 June 2026.  The 9-day trial shall commence next Monday, that is, on 10 August 2026.

II.  ANALYSIS

3.  Ms Frances Lok SC, leading Mr Calvin Ng, counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents, does not rely on the change of legal team as a reason for the delay.  This is only fair because change of legal team is not a good reason for delay.  Ms Lok explains that upon the change of the legal team, the new legal team promptly conducted a review of the 1^st and 2^nd Petitioners’ (collectively, the “Petitioners”) 2^nd Supplemental List of Documents filed on 15 May 2026, that is, about 2 weeks before the PTR.

4.  However, at the PTR, nothing was said about the Petitioners’ 2^nd Supplemental List of Documents.  Not even any word to reserve the right to file any evidence in response or to object to the reliance on the documents disclosed therein.  It is understandable because as Mr Kevin Lau, counsel for the Petitioners, points out, the documents on the Petitioners’ 2^nd Supplemental List of Documents have already been referred to in the affirmation verifying the Petition, save and except for Items 16-18 being new versions of annual reports and annuals returns the old version of which had been exchanged between the parties already.  To be fair to the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents, at the PTR, Ms Lok did flag that legal team had just been changed and the new legal team had been diligent in reviewing the papers.  But this was not the same as reserving any right, and in any event, to reserve any such right on the ground of change of legal team would be futile because this would be same as relying on the change of legal team as the reason for the delay.

5.  Further, the Petitioners’ witnesses would have to be cross-examined on the documents now sought to be relied upon by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents in the 3^rd Supplemental List of Documents, but given that these documents are not produced before, prejudice would likely arise in the sense that (1) the trial would be lengthened and even lengthened without any proper basis to estimate how much it would be longer given that no one would be able to tell how much the witnesses would say about these new documents; (2) the Petitioners would not be afforded sufficient opportunity they would have been afforded in the normal course of proceedings to check and challenge the authenticity; and (3) the Petitioners would be distracted to dealing with these new documents rather than focusing on the trial for which pleadings and evidence should have been properly prepared and ready by PTR the latest except for any good reason, which is absent here.

III.  CONCLUSION

6.  In the circumstances, I dismiss the Summons except for Items 81, 82, 83 and 97, to which the Petitioners sensibly do not object.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents shall pay the Petitioners costs of the Summons to be summarily assessed at the beginning of the trial, and for that purpose, the Petitioners shall lodge and serve a statement of costs by 9:30am on 10 August 2026.