證人陳述書未符規定，如何解除制裁？？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another (By Original Action) and Li Shu Chung v Lee Sai Nam and others (By Counterclaim) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Marlene Ng 暫委高等法院原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2013年5月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告與被告之間的一系列訴訟，包括原告Lee Sai Nam對Li Shu Chung及另一人的訴訟，以及Li Shu Chung對Lee Sai Nam及其他人的反申索。爭議核心是關於證人陳述書的交換。法院曾頒布一項「除非命令」(Unless Order)，要求雙方在2012年3月20日下午4時前交換事實證人陳述書，否則違約方將被禁止在審訊中提出證據。被告Ken提交了一份簡短的證人陳述書，其中僅聲明當時提交證據為時尚早，並援引其訴狀內容作為證據。其後，被告申請延期提交補充證人陳述書，並就「除非命令」的制裁尋求濟助。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於：(1) 被告Ken提交的證人陳述書是否符合「除非命令」的要求，即是否構成實質性的事實證人證據；(2) 如果不符合，被告是否違反了「除非命令」，導致其被禁止在審訊中提出證據；(3) 被告申請延期提交補充證人陳述書及就制裁尋求濟助是否應獲批准，特別是考慮到其申請已大幅逾期。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，被告Ken的證人陳述書並非實質性的事實證人陳述書，未能符合「除非命令」的要求。法官強調，「除非命令」旨在確保實質性遵守，而非形式上的敷衍。法庭認為，被告的違規並非故意或藐視法庭，而是由於其法律代表對命令的理解錯誤。考慮到案件的複雜性、制裁的嚴厲性（禁止提出所有證據，包括文件證據）以及對公平審訊的影響，法庭行使酌情權，批准被告延期申請濟助，並准予解除制裁，但須受進一步指示規限。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括： - Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1666：闡明「除非命令」的性質及其作為終結不遵守命令方訴訟的意圖。 - Foshan City Commercial Bank v Chen Yong Yi & ors HCA15922/1998：確認「除非命令」的制裁在違規時自動生效。 - Daimler AG v Leiduck [2012] 3 HKLRD 119：重申制裁自動生效，違約方須申請濟助。 - Top One International (China) Property Group Co Ltd v Top One Property Group Ltd [2011] 1 HKLRD 606：指出根據《民事司法改革》(CJR) 精神，法院在解除制裁時應採取更積極的案件管理方式，並考慮所有相關情況，包括疏忽或無能導致的違規。 - Allington Investment Corp & ors v First Pacific Bancshares Holdings Ltd & ors [1995] 2 HKC 567：討論補充證人陳述書的提交原則。 - Tang Kim Kwan Patrick also known as Patrick Tang v Lee Chi Ting Karen also known as Karen Lee HCA920/2009：強調法院在行使權力時應確保爭議的公正解決，而非僅因技術性失誤而懲罰當事人。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回被告Ken的證人陳述書，並駁回其提交補充證人陳述書的申請。然而，法庭批准被告延期申請解除「除非命令」的制裁，並准予解除制裁。法庭命令被告在原告提交修訂後的訴狀後21天內提交修訂後的證人陳述書草稿。相關聆訊將押後處理，並就訟費作出指示。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了香港《民事訴訟規則》(RHC) 下「除非命令」的嚴肅性及其制裁的自動生效性質。儘管如此，法院在考慮解除制裁時，會全面審視所有情況，包括違規是否故意、延遲的原因、制裁的比例性以及對公平審訊的影響。本案裁定，即使當事人未能完全遵守命令，若其違規並非故意或藐視，且制裁過於嚴厲，法院仍可能給予濟助，以確保司法公正和公平審訊的原則得以維護。 --- ### 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: Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another (By Original Action) and Li Shu Chung v Lee Sai Nam and others (By Counterclaim) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng - Date of Judgment: 31 May 2013 ### Factual Background This case involves a series of actions between the plaintiff and defendants, including Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another, and Li Shu Chung v Lee Sai Nam and others (By Counterclaim). The core dispute concerned the exchange of witness statements. The court had issued an "Unless Order" requiring both parties to exchange factual witness statements by 4:00 p.m. on 20 March 2012, failing which the defaulting party would be debarred from adducing evidence at trial. The defendant, Ken, submitted a brief witness statement merely asserting it was premature to file evidence and adopting his pleadings. Subsequently, the defendant applied for leave to serve supplemental witness statements and sought relief from the sanction imposed by the Unless Order, despite the application being substantially out of time. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: (1) whether the witness statement submitted by the defendant Ken complied with the Unless Order, constituting substantive factual witness evidence; (2) if not, whether the defendant was in breach of the Unless Order, leading to debarment from adducing evidence at trial; and (3) whether the defendant's application for leave to serve supplemental witness statements and for relief from sanction should be granted, especially given its significant delay. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that the defendant Ken's witness statement was not a substantive factual witness statement and failed to comply with the Unless Order. The judge emphasized that an Unless Order requires substantive compliance, not merely perfunctory adherence. The court found that the defendant's breach was not intentional or contumelious but resulted from a misunderstanding by his legal representatives regarding the order. Considering the complexity of the case, the draconian nature of the sanction (debarring all evidence, including documentary), and the impact on a fair trial, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave for the defendant to apply for relief out of time and granted relief from the sanction, subject to further directions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including: - Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1666: Clarified the nature of an "unless order" and its intent to mark the end of the line for a non-compliant party. - Foshan City Commercial Bank v Chen Yong Yi & ors HCA15922/1998: Confirmed that sanctions in an "unless order" take effect automatically upon breach. - Daimler AG v Leiduck [2012] 3 HKLRD 119: Reaffirmed that sanctions are automatic and the defaulting party must apply for relief. - Top One International (China) Property Group Co Ltd v Top One Property Group Ltd [2011] 1 HKLRD 606: Indicated that under the Civil Justice Reform (CJR) spirit, courts should adopt a more proactive case management approach when granting relief from sanctions, considering all circumstances, including negligence or incompetence leading to default. - Allington Investment Corp & ors v First Pacific Bancshares Holdings Ltd & ors [1995] 2 HKC 567: Discussed principles for serving supplemental witness statements. - Tang Kim Kwan Patrick also known as Patrick Tang v Lee Chi Ting Karen also known as Karen Lee HCA920/2009: Emphasized that the court's primary aim in exercising its powers is to secure the just resolution of disputes, not to punish for technical failures. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered Ken's 1st Statement to be struck out and dismissed the Statements Summons. However, the court granted leave for Ken to apply for relief from the sanction under the Unless Order out of time and granted relief from the sanction. Ken was ordered to serve revised drafts of the Draft Statements within 21 days after FS files and serves the RAR&RADC. The relevant hearings were adjourned for further directions, and costs orders were made. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the seriousness of "Unless Orders" and the automatic effect of their sanctions under the Hong Kong Rules of the High Court (RHC). Nevertheless, courts will consider all circumstances when deciding whether to grant relief from sanctions, including whether the breach was intentional, the reasons for delay, the proportionality of the sanction, and the impact on a fair trial. The case demonstrates that even if a party fails to fully comply, if the breach is not intentional or contumelious and the sanction is overly draconian, the court may grant relief to uphold the principles of justice and ensure a fair trial. --- ### 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.