TSE KWONG LAM v. WONG CHIT SEN AND OTHERS

HCA002102B/1966

1966, No. 2102

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

_____________

BETWEEN

TSE KWONG LAM

Plaintiff

and

WONG CHIT SEN

1st Defendant

CHING WAI SHORK (or SHOOK)

2nd Defendant

CHIT SEN COMPANY LIMITED
(By counterclaim) 3rd Defendant

_____________

Coram: Hon. Mantell, J. in Chambers

Date of hearing: 11th October 1984

Date of delivery of ruling: 11th October 1984

_______

RULING

_______

1. An unusual situation has developed. I need not rehearse the whole of the background, which goes back a very long way. Suffice itto say that this action was eventually heard on appeal by the Privy Council and one matter was left undecided; that was quantum ofdamages. The question was remitted by the Privy Council to the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong for the giving of directions as to howthat assessment was to be made by a Judge of the High Court. The Court of Appeal, having heard argument, in particular with regardto the number of expert witnesses to be called on matters of valuation, ordered that the number be limited to a maximum of two oneach side. The Defendant by counterclaim now wishes for an Order varying that Order of the Court of Appeal so that it might be possiblefor three expert witnesses to be called. The point has been taken by Mr. Lee for the Plaintiff by counterclaim, that I do not havejurisdiction to vary an Order made by the Court of Appeal. At first blush, that submission would seem to be right particularly sincethe Order was made after argument and did not, in terms, invest the Judge of the High Court charged with hearing the assessment ofdamages with any further discretion to make directions in relation to matters covered by the Order of the Court of Appeal. And nothingsaid to me in argument has persuaded me otherwise. Therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.

2. I indicate now, as I did at the beginning, that had the parties been prepared to agree that I should have jurisdiction in this matter,I would have exercised it as it seems to me to be right that, in a matter of this sort, it should be open to the Judge hearing theassessment to make further directions as seem necessary.

(C.B.K. Mantell )
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Sammy Lee (Hastings & Co.) for Plaintiff

S.A. Burns of Johnson, Stokes & Master for Defendants