Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Mg Charter Ltd v Beijing Caissa International Travel Service Co. Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date06 January 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 67
Judgement NumberHCCL7/2014
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Subject MatterCommercial Action
HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD HCA1635A/2012 MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD

HCA 1635/2012 and
HCCL 7/2014
(Consolidated)

[2020] HKCFI 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1635 OF 2012 AND

COMMERCIAL ACTION NO 7 OF 2014

______________

BETWEEN
MG CHARTER LIMITED Plaintiff

and
BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO. LTD Defendant
______________
(Consolidated by Order of Hon Mimmie Chan J dated 2 March 2015)

Before: Deputy High Court Judge William Wong SC in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 27 December 2019

Date of Decision: 27 December 2019

Date of Reasons for Decision: 6 January 2020

_______________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_______________________

1. This is the substantive hearing of the Plaintiff’s summons dated 22 March 2019 (“the Summons”) for leave to adduce expert evidence on aviation industry related matters as per the questions set out in the Summons and subsequently revised in the Plaintiff’s Skeleton Submissions.

2. After the hearing, I made an order in terms of the Summons and for the questions as amended at the hearing to be addressed by expert evidence. I now give my reasons.

Applicable legal principles

3. In Shenzhen Futaihong Precision Industry Co v BYD Co Ltd [2018] HKCA 408 (unreported, CACV 63 and 76/2017, 18 July 2018), the Court of Appeal set out the following principles:

(1) The Court will allow expert evidence only if it is relevant and necessary; it is a case management duty of the Court to avoid proliferation of unnecessary expert evidence (§§9, 12).

(2) The Court will not only examine pleadings, but also the documents and witness statements to determine the true evidential issues in dispute (§§10, 18).

(3) There must be an evidential basis upon which expert evidence is to be adduced (§§51, 56).

(4) Expert evidence should not be allowed where “the question can be determined on factual evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom and expert evidence would not be helpful”(§25).

(5) Where a party seeks to ask an expert a broadly framed question,a draft expert report should be produced by that party to assist the Court in assessing relevance and necessity (§§19 – 20).

4. On the question of necessity, the Court should bear in mind that a complex factual issue does not mean that expert evidence is required. The Court is fully capable of “resolv[ing] complicated factual issues on a daily basis” without expert evidence (see So Kai Hau v YSK2 Engineering Co Ltd HCPI 1077/2006, unreported, 6 May 2013 at §46 per Master Li).

5. The framing of expert questions should generally avoid answering the ultimate question to be determined by the Court (unless necessary and appropriate in the particular circumstances) (see Peace Mark(Holdings) Ltd v Chau Cham Wong Patrick HCA 2371/2009, unreported,2 November 2017 at §§17 – 18 per A Chan J. In Formosa Taffeta Co Ltd v Banque Indosuez [2009] 1 HKLRD 568 at 577, Stone J at §82 said:

“ [A]n expert’s function is to educate and not to advocate, far less to purport to determine the ultimate question at issue in the case,which must be a matter for the court and the court alone.”

(original emphasis)

Material facts

6. From the pleadings and the witness statements filed and served, the Defendant’s main defence is that MEGA, a Maldivian airline (the Plaintiff being its exclusive agent) did not have the approval of the Civil Aviation Authority of China (“CAAC”) or the ability or capacity to fly the Third Rotation flights (as defined in the pleadings) and as such it is entitled not to make any payment under the contract which it entered into with the Plaintiff in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT