You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Case Law’ tag.
In this case, the parties were criticised by Madam Judge Marlene Ng for failing to progress the case with reasonable expediency, and for failing to seek case management directions on expert evidence from the Court before proceeding to obtain expert evidence.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 8 CJRA.
In this case, the Court took into account the underlying objectives (O.1A rr.1(b) and 1(f) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.)), and refused the parties’ application, by consent, for an adjournment of the hearing of an application to set aside a default judgment. This case is an example of the Court taking greater control of legal proceedings and managing their progress.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 8 CJRA.
In a recent Judgment on Basis of Taxation, the Honourable Mr. Justice Chung examined the consequences of a defendant’s failure to accept a sanctioned offer made less than 28 days before the commencement of trial.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 7 CJRA.
It is important for practitioners to monitor very closely decisions by the Hong Kong judiciary as to the interpretation and application of the new and amended provisions in the High Court and District Court Rules. Practitioners must also stay alert to useful and important decisions under equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions, in particular the UK. In this issue we consider the UK decision of Bray t/a The Building Company v Bishop (English unrep., 19 June 2009) in the context of sanctioned offers and payments in Hong Kong.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 7 CJRA.
In his decision on the plaintiff’s application for leave to call an additional witness during the trial of the battle for the estate of the late tycoon Wang Kung Yu-sum (the Deceased), the Honourable Mr Justice Lam examined the relevant matters to be taken into account in an application of such nature, including the case management considerations applicable to the question of the admissibility of evidence of collateral facts.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 6 CJRA.
Obiter comments made by the Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Cheung in this case illustrate that the Court retains a discretion as to whether it will grant leave to appeal under s.14AA of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4) (“HCO”) in respect of an interlocutory order, notwithstanding that the Court is satisfied that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 5 CJRA.
This recent decision of Judge Marlene Ng considered the test that the Court would adopt in granting leave to appeal under new s.63A of the District Court Ordinance (Cap.336) (“DCO”).
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 5 CJRA.
The recent decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Lam in the battle for the estate of the late tycoon Wang Kung Yu-sum to grant leave to the first defendant (Chan Chun Chuen) to adduce evidence from a substitute handwriting expert, in the place of his original handwriting expert, provides an illustration, in the context of admitting expert evidence, of the Court’s application of the principle enshrined in O.1A r.2(2) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.) that the primary aim in exercising its powers is to secure the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 4 CJRA.
The case of Chan Chun Shing v Chang Chen Chin highlights the importance of bearing in mind and adhering to milestone dates in conducting litigation. It illustrates that the Judiciary will likely adopt a strict approach in dealing with applications for moving milestone dates.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 3 CJRA.
The recent decisions of Choi Chun Ming v Cosco-HIT Terminals (HK) Ltd (Nos.1 and 2) given in the context of an application for leave to adduce additional evidence after an application to set down for trial on liability had been made, illustrate how the Court (i) may resolve tensions between the underlying objectives; and (ii) can actively manage and limit the scope of discovery as part of its own case management.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 3 CJRA.
