You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Statements of Truth’ tag.
In this case, the plaintiff commenced a derivative action against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty for arranging certain loan transactions. In his statement of claim (verified by a statement of truth), the plaintiff did not disclose the important fact that he had previously approved almost all the loan transactions in question. Rogers VP found that this was a “suppression of fact” which made the allegations in the statement of claim false. The plaintiff conceded that the statement of claim was defective but argued that he should be given an opportunity to amend the pleadings. Rogers VP, having highlighted the purpose and the seriousness of the statement of truth, refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim. Rogers VP struck out the plaintiff’s action and awarded indemnity costs in favour of the defendants.
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] 16 CJRA.
There have not yet been any substantive cases in Hong Kong dealing with Statements of Truth. As we highlighted in [2009] 7 CJRA, however, it is important for practitioners to 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 KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280 in the context of statements of truth in Hong Kong, and application for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court.
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] 11 CJRA.
One of the key changes implemented by the CJR is the requirement going forward of statements of truth on all pleadings, factual witness statements and expert reports. Statements of truth have been introduced to address the common complaint that pleadings often do not accurately reflect the true case of the party in question.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of Statements of Truth subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in Association with Clifford Chance
This article is available in [2009] 1 CJRA.
In this short video Martin Rogers Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution in Asia for Clifford Chance, and General Editor of The Hong Kong White Book discusses the changes to evidence and trial procedure following the implementation of Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong (2 April 2009).
在這影片中，Clifford Chance 的合夥人暨香港及亞洲區訴訟及調解糾紛主管、Sweet & Maxwell出版之《香港民事訴訟程序》總編輯Martin Rogers，將講述於2009年4月2日實行之香港民事司法改革之相關事項，包括討論證據及審訊程序。
在这影片中，Clifford Chance 的合夥人暨香港及亚洲区诉讼及调解纠纷主管丶Sweet & Maxwell出版之《香港民事诉讼程序》总编辑Martin Rogers，将讲述於2009年4月2日实行之香港民事司法改革之相关事项，包括讨论证据及审讯程序。
In this short video Martin Rogers Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution in Asia for Clifford Chance, and General Editor of The Hong Kong White Book discusses expert reports and the giving of expert evidence following Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong (2 April 2009).
在這影片中， Clifford Chance 的合夥人暨香港及亞洲區訴訟及調解糾紛主管、 Sweet & Maxwell 出版之《香港民事訴訟程序》總編輯 Martin Rogers ，將講述於 2009 年 4 月 2 日實行之香港民事司法改革之相關事項，包括討論專家報告，以及提供專家證供.
在这影片中， Clifford Chance 的合伙人暨香港及亚洲区及调解纠纷主管、 Sweet & Maxwell 出版之《香港民事诉讼程序》总编辑 Martin Rogers ，将讲述于 2009 年 4 月 2 日实行之香港民事司法改革之相关事項，包括讨论专家报告，以及提供专家证供.
