審訊中途傳召證人是否構成延誤？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及 WU YI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Poon J - 判決日期：2010年1月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於Wu Yi方（第一及第二被告）申請傳召一名核數師Mr Chua Kim Kai作證，但該申請在審訊開始前並未提出。法官Poon J在2010年1月26日拒絕了Wu Yi方的傳召證人申請，並於2010年1月29日發布了判決理由。Wu Yi方聲稱Mr Chua是關鍵證人，但未能在案件管理會議或審前覆核中提及傳召他的意圖，導致申請嚴重延誤。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於Wu Yi方在審訊期間才提出傳召證人Mr Chua Kim Kai的申請是否構成不合理延誤，以及法庭是否應基於此延誤而拒絕該申請。此外，法庭亦需考慮傳召該證人的主要目的似乎是為了質疑對方證人的可信性，這是否為傳召證人的正當理由。 ### 判決理由 法官Poon J指出，當事人應在審訊前及早處理傳召證人事宜，並在案件管理會議上告知法庭及對方。任何與傳票相關的申請應在審前覆核前處理完畢。本案中，Wu Yi方嚴重延誤提出傳召核數師Mr Chua的申請，且未能提供充分理由解釋延誤。法庭強調，在審訊過程中提出的遲延申請，除非有充分且強烈的理由，否則應被駁回。此外，法庭認為傳召Mr Chua的主要目的似乎是質疑對方證人的可信性，這並非傳召證人的正當理由。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Li Man York Evelyn v Li Wat Tat Walton [1997] 3 HKC 532，確立了當事人有權傳召證人協助其呈遞案件的一般原則。此外，法庭亦參考了《高等法院規則》(Rules of the High Court) 第38號命令第2A(10)條，關於未能提交證人陳述書的後果，以及 Phipson on Evidence (16th edn) 關於傳票的發出及撤銷理由，以及質疑證人可信性的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了Wu Yi方傳召Mr Chua Kim Kai作證的申請。法庭裁定該申請因嚴重且不可原諒的延誤而應被駁回，並且傳召該證人的主要目的似乎是為了質疑對方證人的可信性，這是不被允許的。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在香港法律訴訟中，當事人必須及早且勤勉地處理傳召證人事宜，並在案件管理會議和審前覆核階段完成所有相關申請。在審訊過程中提出的遲延申請，將面臨嚴格審查，除非有極其充分的理由，否則很可能被駁回。此外，傳召證人以純粹質疑對方證人可信性的做法，通常不被允許。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED and WU YI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Poon J - Date of Judgment: 29 January 2010 ### Factual Background This case concerned an application by the Wu Yi Parties (1st and 2nd Defendants) to subpoena Mr Chua Kim Kai, a certified public accountant, to give evidence. The application was made late, not having been raised during earlier interlocutory hearings or pre-trial reviews. Justice Poon J refused the Wu Yi Parties' application on 26 January 2010, with reasons for decision handed down on 29 January 2010. The Wu Yi Parties claimed Mr Chua was an essential witness but failed to indicate their intention to subpoena him in a timely manner. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Wu Yi Parties' application to subpoena Mr Chua Kim Kai, made during the trial, constituted undue delay, and whether the court should refuse the application on that ground alone. Additionally, the court considered whether the predominant reason for calling the witness, which appeared to be to impeach the credibility of the opposing party's witnesses, was a permissible ground for issuing a subpoena. ### Ratio Decidendi Justice Poon J held that parties must act with due diligence in approaching witnesses and should inform the court and the other side at the case management conference if a subpoena is intended. All applications pertaining to subpoenas should be disposed of before the pre-trial review. The Wu Yi Parties' application to subpoena Mr Chua was made with inordinate and inexcusable delay, for which no good reasons were provided. The court emphasized that late applications made during trial are subject to greater scrutiny and will likely be dismissed for delay alone. Furthermore, the court found that the predominant reason for calling Mr Chua appeared to be to impeach the credibility of the opposing party's witnesses, which is impermissible. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Li Man York Evelyn v Li Wat Tat Walton [1997] 3 HKC 532, which establishes the general right of a party to call witnesses to assist in presenting their case. Reference was also made to Order 38 rule 2A(10) of the Rules of the High Court regarding the consequences of failing to exchange witness statements, and Phipson on Evidence (16th edn) concerning the grounds for issuing and setting aside subpoenas, and the principles related to impeaching witness credibility. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the Wu Yi Parties' application for leave to subpoena Mr Chua Kim Kai. The application was dismissed due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, and because the predominant reason for calling the witness appeared to be to impeach the credibility of the opposing party's witnesses, which was deemed impermissible. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the importance of timely and diligent management of witness-related matters in Hong Kong litigation. Parties must raise intentions to subpoena witnesses at case management conferences and complete all related applications before pre-trial reviews. Late applications, especially those made during trial, will be subject to strict scrutiny and are likely to be dismissed for delay alone without strong justification. Furthermore, using a subpoena primarily to impeach the credibility of an opponent's witnesses is generally not allowed. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.