YIP WAI MUN, LINDA v. YAN TSZ WING

HCA 1385/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1385 OF 2011

_______________________________

BETWEEN

	YIP WAI MUN, LINDA	Plaintiff
	and
	YAN TSZ WING	Defendant

_______________________________

Before: Mr Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers (Open to the public)

Date of Hearing: 10 April 2013

Date of Decision: 10 April 2013

_______________________________

DECISION

_______________________________

 

1.  The parties agree that I should deal with the plaintiff’s summons on the scope and arrangement for the expert evidence for the trial in this Case Management Conference.

2.  Mr. J. Chan, counsel acts for the plaintiff and Mr. S.W. Chan, solicitor acts for the defendant.

3.  The defendant opposes the proposed scope and mode for preparing the expert report on the basis that the scope is too wide for the purpose of resolving the disputes between the parties at trial.

4.  However, Mr. Chan for the defendant agrees that the plaintiff has to prove the allegations as pleaded in paragraphs 6 and 14, in particular, 14 (xxvi) and (xxvii) of the Amended Statement of Claim in relation to the deficiencies of the software programmes provided by the defendant for the joint venture between the parties.  One of the issues will be for the court to determine the reasonable time for the defendant to provide the software and the plaintiff has to prove to the court the reasonable time, within which the defendant should be able to do so.  This issue will require expert evidence to assist the court.

5.  Having heard the arguments between the parties, I am satisfied that paragraph 1 of the summons is too wide, which almost verges on the academic exercise of computer software relating to the functions in the joint venture, which the court is not interested in.  The court will only be interested in the functional breaches as alleged by the plaintiff, which are set out in paragraph 2 of the summons.

6.  I shall now make an order as follows:

a.   Paragraph 1 of the summons is disallowed;

b.   The rest of the summons is allowed, with clarifications of “the Joint Venture” and “the website” as stated in court.

c.    The costs of this application be to the plaintiff, assessed under Order 62 rule 9A to be $22,000, taking into account that the plaintiff has not been fully successful and some of the documents can be used for the Case Management Conference, to be paid within 14 days from the date hereof.

(K.W. Lung) Registrar, High Court

Mr. Julian Chan, instructed by Messrs Chan & Cheng, for the Plaintiff

Mr. Chan Sai Wing, of Messrs Philip S.W. Chan & Co., for the Defendant