未認證譯本可否呈上訴庭？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LIMITED 訴 JOHN HO 及 另一人 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：司法常務官龍劍雲 (Registrar K.W. Lung) - 判決日期：2010年8月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於上訴人（原審第一及第二被告）提出的一項申請，要求法庭指示雙方就庭審筆錄的翻譯達成一致意見。上訴聆訊已定於2010年9月16日進行，上訴人需在9月2日前提交上訴文件夾。上訴人希望引用原審中辯方證人證詞的中文筆錄，並已自行選取相關部分翻譯成英文，共約250頁。由於時間緊迫，法庭傳譯員無法及時完成翻譯認證。上訴人曾嘗試徵求答辯人（原審原告）同意，在沒有認證的情況下接納翻譯本，但答辯人拒絕，並要求上訴人提供第二被告的完整證詞筆錄作為同意的條件。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，上訴法庭在沒有法庭傳譯員認證的情況下，是否應接納未經認證的庭審筆錄翻譯本作為證據。上訴人認為這些筆錄是輔助證據，主要證據為書面文件，並願意承擔法庭可能拒絕接納的風險。答辯人最初堅持要求完整筆錄，但後來同意在獲得足夠時間審閱翻譯本後，考慮同意接納未經認證的翻譯本。 ### 判決理由 司法常務官指出，法庭無權強迫答辯人同意接納未經認證的翻譯本。然而，考慮到雙方均不希望因翻譯問題而延遲上訴聆訊，且答辯人已同意在有足夠時間審閱後，考慮接納未經認證的翻譯本，司法常務官遂作出指示。法庭的決定是基於雙方對上訴時間表的共識，以及答辯人對審閱翻譯本所需時間的讓步，而非基於法庭有權強制一方同意接納未經認證的證據。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭命令上訴人須於2010年8月26日前向答辯人提供庭審筆錄的翻譯本。答辯人須在收到翻譯本後7天內書面確認是否同意接納未經認證的翻譯本作為證據。若僅同意部分，則需列明同意及不同意的部分。本申請的訟費（包括當日聆訊訟費）將由上訴結果決定。 ### 判決啟示 本案突顯了在香港上訴程序中，若需引用非英文的庭審筆錄，其翻譯本必須經過法庭傳譯員認證的重要性。若無法獲得認證，則需徵得對方同意方可呈交。法庭無權強制一方同意接納未經認證的證據，但會考慮雙方意願以確保訴訟程序順暢進行。律師應預留充足時間處理翻譯及認證事宜，以避免在最後階段出現爭議。 --- ### 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: TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LIMITED v JOHN HO and Another - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Registrar K.W. Lung - Date of Judgment: 12 August 2010 ### Factual Background This application arose from the appellants' (1st and 2nd defendants in the original action) request for directions that both parties should agree on the translation of court transcripts. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 16 September 2010, and the appellants needed to lodge appeal bundles by 2 September 2010. The appellants wished to refer to certain Chinese transcripts of defence witnesses' evidence at trial, having selected relevant parts and translated them into English, totaling about 250 pages. Due to time constraints, court interpreters could not certify the translation. The appellants sought the respondent's (plaintiff in the original action) consent to admit the uncertified translation, but the respondent refused, imposing a condition that the full transcript of the 2nd defendant's evidence be provided. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal should accept uncertified translations of trial transcripts as evidence. The appellants considered these transcripts as subsidiary evidence, with documentary evidence being primary, and were willing to risk the court's refusal. The respondent initially insisted on the full transcript but later agreed to consider admitting the uncertified translation if given sufficient time to review it. ### Ratio Decidendi The Registrar noted that the court lacked the power to compel the respondent to consent to the admission of uncertified translations against its will. However, considering that both parties did not wish to vacate the appeal hearing due to the transcripts, and the respondent had conceded to consider the uncertified translation after sufficient review time, the Registrar issued directions. The decision was based on the parties' consensus regarding the appeal timetable and the respondent's flexibility on review time, rather than on the court's power to mandate acceptance of uncertified evidence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court ordered the appellants to supply the respondent with the translated transcripts by 26 August 2010. The respondent must, within 7 days of receipt, confirm in writing whether it agrees to admit the uncertified translated transcripts as evidence. If only parts are agreed, the respondent must specify which parts are agreed and which are not. Costs of this application, including today's hearing, are to be in the cause of the appeal. ### Key Takeaways This case highlights the importance of certified translations for non-English trial transcripts in Hong Kong appeal proceedings. If certification is not feasible, the consent of the opposing party is crucial for admission. The court cannot compel such consent but will consider parties' willingness to ensure smooth litigation. Legal practitioners should allow ample time for translation and certification to avoid last-minute disputes. --- ### 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.