審訊中後期傳召新證人是否獲准？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：華懋慈善基金有限公司 訴 陳振聰 及 律政司司長 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 - 判決日期：2009年6月11日 ### 案情摘要 本案為龔如心遺產爭奪案的其中一個環節。原告華懋慈善基金有限公司（「原告」）在審訊期間申請傳召一名新證人郭先生（Mr. Kwok）作供。郭先生的證供涉及他於1991或1992年準備的一份風水遺囑（Fung Shui will），據稱與本案爭議的2006年遺囑（2006 Will）有相似之處，並試圖將該事件與第一被告陳振聰（「第一被告」）聯繫起來。原告曾於2009年4月3日表示不會傳召該證人，但在審訊進行9天後，於2009年5月29日改變主意並提出申請。第一被告反對此申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告是否應獲准在審訊中後期傳召一名新證人，該證人將提供與本案事實無直接關聯的風水遺囑事件的證據。原告主張該證據與2006年遺囑是否具有遺囑意圖（testamentary intent）的爭議相關。第一被告則反對，認為此舉將導致審訊延誤及不公。 ### 判決理由 法庭應用了《高等法院規則》第2號命令第5條及第1A號命令所載的潛在目標，並採納了O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police案確立的兩階段測試，即證據的法律可受理性（legal admissibility）和案件管理（case management）考量。法官認為郭先生的證據證明力（probative value）不高，其與第一被告的關聯性薄弱，且傳召該證人將導致對旁枝問題（collateral issues）的廣泛調查，造成審訊延誤和不公。法官強調，在審訊中途提出此類申請，應當考慮其對審訊進度及各方造成的影響。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038：確立了在民事訴訟中處理類同事實證據（similar fact evidence）的兩階段測試，即法律可受理性及案件管理考量。 - Vernon v Bosley [1994] PIQR 337：霍夫曼勳爵（Hoffmann LJ）闡述了證據相關性（relevance）的程度是可變的，需權衡其證明力與接收證據可能帶來的不便、費用、延誤或壓迫。 - Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill (1882) 47 LT 29：討論了旁枝事實（collateral facts）證據的處理，強調保持審訊在可行和可管理範圍內的重要性。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了原告要求傳召新證人郭先生的申請。法官裁定，原告未能遵守法庭於2009年3月30日發出的指示，且其申請未能提供充分理由，加上該證據的證明力不足，並會對審訊造成不必要的延誤和不公。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在民事訴訟中，特別是在審訊中後期處理證據傳召申請時，會嚴格考慮案件管理原則。即使證據具有一定的相關性，法庭仍會權衡其證明力與可能造成的延誤、費用及對審訊公平性的影響。這對訴訟律師在審訊前充分準備證據和遵守法庭指示提出了更高要求。 --- ### 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 and The Secretary for Justice - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Lam J - Date of Judgment: 11 June 2009 ### Factual Background This case is part of the probate dispute over Nina Kung's estate. The Plaintiff, Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited, applied during the trial to call an additional witness, Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok's evidence concerned a 'Fung Shui will' he prepared in 1991 or 1992, which allegedly shared similarities with the 2006 Will in dispute, and attempted to link this incident to the 1st Defendant, Chan Chun Chuen. The Plaintiff had initially indicated on 3 April 2009 that they would not call this witness but changed their mind and applied on 29 May 2009, after 9 days of trial. The 1st Defendant opposed the application. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Plaintiff should be granted leave to call a new witness late in the trial, whose evidence concerned a 'Fung Shui will' incident not directly connected to the facts of the present case. The Plaintiff argued the evidence was relevant to the issue of whether the 2006 Will was executed with testamentary intent. The 1st Defendant opposed, arguing it would cause trial delay and prejudice. ### Ratio Decidendi The court applied Order 2 Rule 5 and the underlying objectives of Order 1A of the Rules of the High Court, adopting the two-stage test from O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, which involves legal admissibility and case management considerations. The judge found Mr. Kwok's evidence to have low probative value, weak association with the 1st Defendant, and that admitting it would lead to extensive investigation into collateral issues, causing delay and prejudice. The judge emphasized that such applications made mid-trial must consider their impact on trial progress and fairness to all parties. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case primarily cited: - O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038: Established a two-stage test for similar fact evidence in civil trials, involving legal admissibility and case management considerations. - Vernon v Bosley [1994] PIQR 337: Hoffmann LJ articulated that the degree of relevance is variable and must be balanced against the inconvenience, expense, delay, or oppression caused by admitting the evidence. - Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill (1882) 47 LT 29: Discussed the handling of evidence on collateral facts, emphasizing the importance of keeping trials within a practicable and manageable compass. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for leave to call the additional witness, Mr. Kwok. The judge ruled that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the court's direction of 30 March 2009, did not provide sufficient justification for the late application, and the evidence had insufficient probative value, which would cause undue delay and prejudice to the 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.