遺產訴訟審訊日期如何排定？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LIMITED (華懋慈善基金有限公司) v CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳振聰) and THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE and WANG DIN SHIN - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon A Cheung J - 判決日期：2008年5月28日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及龔如心遺產的訴訟，原告為華懋慈善基金有限公司，第一被告為陳振聰，第二被告為律政司司長，第三被告為王廷歆。本判決主要處理的是排期審訊的事宜。第三被告王廷歆已屆97歲高齡，希望案件能盡早開審。各方律師就審訊日期、律師團隊的選擇、以及過往訴訟的相關性等因素向法庭陳詞。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於如何平衡各方利益，以確定遺產訴訟的審訊日期。主要考慮因素包括：第三被告的年齡、各方選擇代表律師的權利、律師的便利性、避免不公平的訴訟優勢、案件準備情況（包括專家報告交換時間）、以及審訊預計所需時間。法庭需決定是否應優先考慮第三被告的年齡，並在律師便利性與司法行政效率之間取得平衡。 ### 判決理由 法官在權衡所有相關因素後，特別考慮到第三被告王廷歆已97歲高齡，且其年齡因素在過往訴訟中已是關注點。法官強調，法庭的職責是伸張正義，而非遷就律師的便利性，並指出「遲來的正義非正義」(Justice delayed is justice denied)。儘管第一被告的律師團隊在二月和五月均不方便，但法官認為應為各方提供公平的競爭環境，因此決定將審訊暫定於最早的二月開始。法官亦指出，過往訴訟的相關性雖有考慮，但並不必然要求由同一律師團隊代表。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭指示將審訊暫定於2009年2月16日開始，預計為期8週。此為臨時指示，最終排期需待各方完成所有指示（包括交換證人陳述書和提交專家報告）並獲法庭許可後方可確定。各方須在28天內互相知會擬提交的專家報告類型，並商議是否可將2002年遺囑的解釋問題與其他爭議分開審理。訟費暫定為訴訟費用 (costs be in the cause)。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在排期審訊時，法庭會優先考慮司法行政的效率和當事人的特殊情況（如高齡），而非律師的便利性。法官明確指出「遲來的正義非正義」這一原則，並為確保公平競爭環境，即使律師團隊不便，仍可設定較早的審訊日期。此外，法庭亦表明一旦審訊開始，將會持續進行直至完成，不論是否超出預計時間。 --- ### 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: CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LIMITED (華懋慈善基金有限公司) v CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳振聰) and THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE and WANG DIN SHIN - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon A Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 28 May 2008 ### Factual Background This case concerns litigation over the estate of Nina Kung. The plaintiff is Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited, the 1st defendant is Chan Chun Chuen, the 2nd defendant is the Secretary for Justice, and the 3rd defendant is Wang Din Shin. This judgment primarily addresses the setting down of the case for trial. The 3rd defendant, Wang Din Shin, is 97 years old and wishes for the trial to commence as early as possible. Counsel for all parties made submissions regarding trial dates, choice of counsel, and the relevance of previous litigation. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case is how to balance various interests to determine the trial date for the probate action. Key considerations included: the age of the 3rd defendant, the parties' right to choose counsel, convenience of counsel, avoiding unfair litigation advantage, readiness for trial (including expert report exchange), and estimated trial length. The court had to decide whether to prioritize the 3rd defendant's age and strike a balance between counsel's convenience and the efficiency of justice administration. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, after balancing all relevant considerations, particularly noted the 3rd defendant Wang Din Shin's advanced age of 97, which had been a concern in previous litigation. The judge emphasized that the court sits for the administration of justice, not the convenience of counsel, stating that "Justice delayed is justice denied." Despite the 1st defendant's counsel being unavailable for both February and May dates, the judge decided to set the provisional trial date for the earliest possible time in February to provide a level playing field. The judge also noted that while previous litigation was relevant, it did not necessitate representation by the same legal team. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court provisionally directed that the trial commence on 16 February 2009, reserving 8 weeks. This is a provisional direction, subject to the parties obtaining leave to set down the case after complying with all previous directions (including exchange of witness statements and expert reports). The parties are to inform each other of the types of expert reports they intend to file within 28 days and confer on whether the construction of the 2002 will can be tried separately. Costs were ordered to be in the cause. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in setting trial dates, the court prioritizes the efficiency of justice administration and special circumstances of parties (such as advanced age) over the convenience of counsel. The judge explicitly invoked the principle of "Justice delayed is justice denied" and set an early trial date to ensure a level playing field, even if it inconvenienced counsel. Furthermore, the court indicated that once the trial begins, it is expected to continue day-to-day until completion, regardless of whether it overruns its estimate. --- ### 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.