遺囑認證訴訟中見證人陳述的披露範圍？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LIMITED v CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳掁聰) 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 (Hon Lam J) - 判決日期：2008年12月15日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於華懋慈善基金有限公司（原告）與陳振聰（第一被告）之間的一宗遺囑認證訴訟。第一被告申請特定文件披露 (specific discovery)，要求原告披露與龔如心遺囑製作相關的七類文件，包括證人陳述書、草稿、翻譯本、筆記及相關通訊。原告已提供第一類和第二類文件（證人陳述書），但基於法律專業特權 (privilege) 反對披露第三至第七類文件。爭議點在於《Re Fuld (No.2)》一案所確立的規則範圍，即在遺囑認證訴訟中，見證人是否被視為法庭證人，以及其陳述和相關文件是否受特權保護。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於《Re Fuld (No.2)》規則的適用範圍。第一被告主張該規則應擴展至見證人就遺囑執行問題以外的事項所作的陳述草稿、筆記及相關通訊，認為這些文件應予披露。原告則認為該規則僅限於見證人就遺囑簽署和執行問題所作的正式陳述，其他文件仍受訴訟特權 (litigation privilege) 保護。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了《Re Fuld (No.2)》一案的判例，並引用了Scarman J的判詞，指出該規則僅適用於見證人就遺囑簽署和執行問題所作的陳述。法庭認為，見證人作為法庭證人，其特權僅在涉及遺囑簽署和執行事項時被移除，而其他通訊仍受訴訟特權保護。對於草稿和筆記，法庭認為除非經見證人批准，否則不能自動視為見證人陳述。因此，法庭裁定只有包含見證人就遺囑簽署和執行問題的證據的草稿和筆記才可能需要披露，其他文件則受特權保護。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《Re Fuld (No.2) [1965] P 405》，法庭詳細分析了其判決理由。此外，還引用了《Gordon v Hilton (1995) BC 9501693》支持其結論，以及《Re Webster [1974] 1 WLR 1641》和《Nina Kung v Wong Din Shin (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387》等案例，但指出這些案例主要涉及盤問權利，而非文件披露特權。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了第一被告關於披露第四、第六和第七類文件的申請。對於第三和第五類文件（草稿和筆記），法庭批准了有限度的申請，要求原告提交誓章，說明是否存在包含見證人就遺囑簽署和執行問題的證據的草稿和筆記，並可在誓章中主張特權。本案不作訟費命令 (no order as to costs)。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了在遺囑認證訴訟中，見證人作為「法庭證人」的身份對文件披露特權的影響範圍。它強調了訴訟特權的重要性，並限制了《Re Fuld (No.2)》規則的適用範圍，僅限於見證人就遺囑簽署和執行問題的證據。這對處理涉及見證人陳述和相關文件的遺囑認證案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 v CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳掁聰) and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 15 December 2008 ### Factual Background This case arose from a probate action between Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited (Plaintiff) and Chan Chun Chuen (1st Defendant). The 1st Defendant applied for specific discovery of seven categories of documents related to the making of Nina Kung's will, including witness statements, drafts, translations, notes, and related correspondence. The Plaintiff had provided items 1 and 2 (witness statements) but resisted discovery of items 3 to 7 on grounds of privilege. The dispute centered on the scope of the rule established in Re Fuld (No.2), concerning whether an attesting witness in a probate action is considered a witness of the court and if their statements and related documents are protected by privilege. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was the scope of the rule in Re Fuld (No.2). The 1st Defendant contended that the rule should extend to draft statements, notes, and related communications by attesting witnesses on matters beyond the execution of the will, arguing for their disclosure. The Plaintiff maintained that the rule was limited to formal statements by attesting witnesses concerning the signing and execution of the will, with other documents remaining protected by litigation privilege. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the precedent of Re Fuld (No.2) and cited Scarman J's judgment, concluding that the rule applies only to statements by attesting witnesses concerning the attestation and execution of the will. The court held that while an attesting witness is a witness of the court, privilege is only removed for evidence related to attestation and execution; other communications remain protected by litigation privilege. Regarding drafts and notes, the court found they could not be automatically treated as witness statements unless approved by the witnesses. Therefore, the court ruled that only drafts and notes containing evidence from attesting witnesses on attestation and execution might be subject to disclosure, while other documents were privileged. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary precedent cited was Re Fuld (No.2) [1965] P 405, which the court analyzed in detail. Gordon v Hilton (1995) BC 9501693 was also cited in support of the conclusion. Other cases like Re Webster [1974] 1 WLR 1641 and Nina Kung v Wong Din Shin (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387 were mentioned but distinguished as primarily concerning the right to cross-examine rather than discovery privilege. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the 1st Defendant's application for discovery of items 4, 6, and 7. For items 3 and 5 (drafts and notes), a limited application was granted, requiring the Plaintiff to file an affidavit stating the existence or non-existence of drafts and notes containing evidence from attesting witnesses on attestation and execution, with liberty to claim privilege in such affidavit. There was no order as to costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the scope of the impact of an attesting witness's status as a 'witness of the court' on document discovery privilege in probate actions. It underscores the importance of litigation privilege and limits the application of the Re Fuld (No.2) rule strictly to evidence from attesting witnesses concerning the attestation and execution of the will. This provides guidance for probate cases involving witness statements and related documents. --- ### 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.