LEE KWOK TUNG ALBERT v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD

HCA 168/2016 & HCA 1885/2017
(consolidated)

[2019] HKCFI 2568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 168 of 2016 & 1885 of 2017 (consolidated)

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  An appeal against a Master’s decision is a hearing de novo of the application.

2.  In granting leave to parties to file supplemental witness statements, the Court is exercising its discretion and case management powers, in accordance with the underlying objectives of the CJR. Procedural economy, proportionality, reasonable necessity, costs effectiveness, and an early and efficient trial are matters to be considered.

3.  Issues for determination at trial are decided by the pleadings, and not by the witness statements, which should only deal with material facts relevant to the issues in dispute, as pleaded.

4.  The issues raised in the pleadings in this case are simple: whether the Defendant is in breach of the duties and standards of practices set out in the Personal Data Privacy Ordinance, and/or its duties of care under common law and contract, if any.  Much of the facts as pleaded are not in dispute.  Those which are have already been put in issue in the pleadings.

5.  Having considered these pleadings, the key issues in dispute and the witnesses statements already filed, I do not regard the majority of the contents of the proposed supplemental statement of the Plaintiff to be either relevant, or necessary, for determination of the key issues in dispute at trial. 

6.  It is neither necessary nor proper for the Plaintiff to make arguments, state opinions or repeat what he has already stated in his first statement, or to express disagreement with what the Defendant's witness has stated.  These can be covered by his examination or cross-examination at trial, if necessary. 

7.  Although the Plaintiff’s hearsay evidence of what his wife had said at the meetings with the Defendant is not inadmissible evidence at trial, it can and should be dealt with by his wife directly, herself.  It is high time the courts exercise greater control over the admissibility and contents of statements, which should be accounts of relevant facts known to the maker, in his/ her own words, instead of in the present format of the Plaintiff’s wife, simply confirming the truth of what her husband said, as to her own acts and what she said.  If and when she adduces a statement of her own account of the relevant facts, she can seek leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant as to the production of a proper, further statement, if necessary.

8.  I am only prepared to permit the Plaintiff to state the facts contained in para 22(3) of his draft statement.  Save for that, leave is refused on the Plaintiff’s application for leave to file the 2 supplemental statements.  The Appeal is allowed, with costs to the Defendant.