In an important and interesting judgment, the High Court declined to admit an overseas barrister unless he appeared with a local barrister. The applicant had applied for ad hoc admission to conduct a case in Hong Kong, on the basis that he would appear with the two solicitor advocates who had charge of the case. Therefore, they sought the removal of what is a usual condition to the grant of ad hoc admission – namely, that the applicant (an English Queen's Counsel) appear with a local barrister.
Mathnasium Center Licensing, LLC v Chang is another recent example of the courts sentencing makers of false statements of truth to a period of imprisonment for contempt of court. In this case, the defendant signed a false statement of truth in a defence filed on behalf of a company which he controlled and which was being sued by the plaintiff. The court found that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant must have known about the falsity of the admission and thus found him to be in contempt of court.
Summary judgment is not available in Hong Kong civil actions which include a claim based on an allegation of fraud. The rule has traditionally been broadly interpreted by the courts, such that any claim raising an allegation of dishonesty against a defendant prevents a plaintiff from applying for summary judgment. The inflexibility of this rule, and the ambit of the meaning of 'dishonesty' in this context, have been the subject of judicial criticism. Now, there are proposals afoot to abolish the so-called 'fraud exception'.
The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal an apparently wide-ranging order for the production of documents made in favour of the liquidators in China Medical Technologies Inc v Tsang. Despite the respondent's best efforts, the Court of Appeal decided that the issues stated to arise out of its judgment did not raise questions of great general or public importance. The outcome of the appeal is bolstered by a legislative amendment which amounts to a more coextensive power.
In China Medical Technologies Inc (In Liquidation) v Bank of East Asia Ltd, the court granted an ex parte order extending the validity of a writ, effectively giving the plaintiffs an additional year in which to effect service. The High Court has now discharged that order with the consequences that service was set aside and the action dismissed. This is the latest in a number of similar decisions and suggests that the courts will in future scrutinise extension applications much more closely.
The Court of Appeal recently sought to impose some order on an unfair prejudice petition which had been mired in wrangling over pleadings for six years. The decision shows that parties presenting an unfair prejudice petition should ensure that it sets out the grounds for relief as these cannot, in general, later be extended in the points of claim. Where points of claim lack particularity or disclose no basis for the relief sought, requests for further information or applications to strike out should be brought promptly.
In a recent High Court case, the defendants successfully resisted summary judgment for breach of contract on the basis of the prevention principle, which excuses a breach of contract where the other party's actions caused it. Following this decision, contracting parties may wish to consider whether to insert express wording into contracts containing no set-off clauses that would exclude this principle.
An email containing legal advice leaked to a claimant in an employment dispute did not fall foul of the iniquity principle and therefore remained privileged. An overheard conversation, believed to be in relation to the claimant's dismissal, could not be relied on to aid the interpretation of the email as there was no evidence that the individuals engaged in the conversation had seen it.
When will an order for costs be made against a family member who was not a party to the underlying proceedings but who contributed significantly to funding the losing party's defence? According to a recent case, the answer is when the funder has a personal interest in the litigation.
The High Court recently clarified that merely contracting with another party and thereby giving it the opportunity or means to breach another pre-existing contract is not itself sufficient to constitute inducing breach of contract. More practically, the case is a reminder of the perils of becoming involved as a third party in others' disputes.