|
HCMP1412/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1412 OF 2008
----------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
RMBSA CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENA VENTURA, SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES
(a registered foreign law firm in the HKSAR) |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE |
1st Defendant |
| |
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION |
2nd Defendant |
----------------------
Before: Hon Wright J in Court
Date of Hearing: 31 March 2009
Date of Decision: 31 March 2009
----------------------
D E C I S I O N
----------------------
1. In this matter the Plaintiffs are to serve a copy of Annexure A to the report of their expert, that report being dated 11 March 2009, on the Defendants forthwith.
2. The Plaintiffs brought the proceedings which gave rise to the order made on 16 December 2008. They requested that they be at liberty to file and serve expert evidence regarding the meaning, scope and extent of legal professional privilege under Philippine law and whether the seized materials referred to in the originating summons, or any of them, are protected by legal professional privilege.
3. They could have filed and served that expert report in a format other than that in which it has been generated. The fact that the Plaintiffs’ expert chose to do it in the format which he has, which contains an annexure which, in general terms, identifies groups of documents, was his decision. He being an expert, it must be that he knows the consequences of disclosing the identity of documents and he must be taken, in the circumstances, to have followed the course he did deliberately.
4. It seems to me untenable to suggest that the Defendant should not have the annexure to the expert report.
5. The two questions I am going to be asked at trial are, firstly, whether legal professional privilege of the Philippines or Hong Kong applies to the documents and, secondly, whichever system of law applies to them, which of the documents, if any, are privileged.
6. The Defendants obviously are entitled to be placed in a position to deal with the Plaintiffs' contentions properly . To deny them a copy of, effectively, the second leg of the expert's opinion would be to place them at a completely unacceptable disadvantage, given that that is the format in which the Plaintiffs' expert has chosen to prepare his report.
| |
( A R Wright )
Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court |
Mr Dennis Kwok, instructed by Messrs Jonathan Rostron, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs
Mr Wayne Walsh, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants
Appeal allowed: see CACV96/2009 dated 4 June 2009
|