證人陳述書提及文件，檢查範圍如何界定？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD 及 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY 訴 GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED 及 另外兩人 - 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：2004年7月21日 ### 案情摘要 本案原告為GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD及SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY，被告為GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED、EHHAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED及鍾志強。訴訟於2004年7月5日開審。在原告證人劉教授完成主問後，被告方申請要求檢查劉教授於1999年的日記（下稱「該日記」）。被告方根據香港《高等法院規則》 (Rules of the High Court) 第24號命令第10條提出申請，要求檢查該日記中1999年1月至6月的內容，並限制檢查僅供被告方的法律顧問查閱。劉教授的證人陳述書第15段曾提及該日記，用以編纂其與第三被告鍾志強於1999年初會面的時間表。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於，根據香港《高等法院規則》第24號命令第10條，被告方是否有權檢查原告證人劉教授的日記中，未在證人陳述書中明確提及的部分。被告方主張，由於證人陳述書引用了該日記作為佐證，故有權檢查。原告方則認為，僅應檢查證人陳述書中提及的部分，且在訴訟後期提出此申請會導致審訊延誤。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，根據《高等法院規則》第24號命令第10條，文件檢查的目的是讓對方充分理解己方陳述書的內容，並非全面的證據開示 (discovery)。當事人選擇在陳述書中提及某文件時，該文件相關部分的私隱權即告喪失。然而，這並不代表對方有權檢查文件的所有內容。披露方有權遮蓋文件中未被提及的無關部分。法庭亦考慮到，在審訊後期提出此申請會導致審訊延誤，且該日記中未提及的部分對解決爭議的相關性甚微。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例確立法律原則： - Shun Kai Finance Co Ltd v Japan Leasing (HK) Ltd (No. 2) [2001] 1 HKC 636：確立了根據《高等法院規則》第24號命令第10條進行的文件檢查與其他形式的證據開示之間存在根本區別，且根據該條例披露的文件不受隱含承諾 (implied undertaking) 的保護。 - Derby v Weldon (No. 2) (The Times, 1988年10月20日，未經報導)：指出當事人選擇在訴狀或誓章中提及文件時，該文件的私隱權即告喪失。 - Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 756：重申了上述原則，並強調強制披露的例外情況僅限於當事人別無選擇必須披露的文件。 - Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Arab Bank plc (1991年2月25日，未經報導)：闡明了第24號命令第10條檢查的目的在於使對方充分理解己方陳述書的內容，而非全面的證據開示。 - Quilter v Heatly (1883) 23 Ch D 42：確立了披露方有權遮蓋文件中未被提及的無關部分。 - Savings Bank v Gasco BV [1984] 1 WLR 271：應用了Quilter v Heatly的原則。 - Comfort Hotels Ltd v Wembley Stadium Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 872：強調證人陳述書內容的自願性。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了被告方要求全面檢查劉教授日記的申請。法庭裁定，原告方僅需允許被告方的法律顧問檢查日記中劉教授證人陳述書第15段所提及的相關條目。法庭亦考慮到申請提出時間過晚，可能導致審訊延誤。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了《高等法院規則》第24號命令第10條下文件檢查的範圍限制，即僅限於證人陳述書中明確提及的部分。法庭強調，此類檢查與全面證據開示 (discovery) 不同，且披露方有權遮蓋文件中未提及的無關內容。此外，法庭在行使酌情權時，會考慮申請提出的時機及對審訊進度的影響。 --- ### 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: GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD and SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY v GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED and 2 others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 21 July 2004 ### Factual Background The plaintiffs, GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD and SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY, sued GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED, EHHAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED, and Chung Chee Keung. The trial commenced on 5 July 2004. After the plaintiffs' witness, Professor Liu, completed his evidence in chief, the defendants applied for an order seeking the production of Professor Liu's 1999 diary ("the Diary") for inspection. The application was made under Order 24 Rule 10 of the Rules of the High Court, seeking inspection of the part of the Diary from January to June 1999, limited to the defendants' legal advisors. Professor Liu's witness statement, paragraph 15, referred to the Diary to compile a chronology of his meetings with the 3rd defendant in early 1999. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the defendants were entitled, under Order 24 Rule 10 of the Rules of the High Court, to inspect parts of Professor Liu's diary not explicitly referred to in his witness statement. The defendants argued that since the diary was referenced as corroborative evidence, they had a right to inspect it. The plaintiffs contended that only the referred parts should be open to inspection, and that the late application would cause trial delays. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that under Order 24 Rule 10, the purpose of document inspection is to enable the opposing party to fully understand the contents of a pleading or statement, not to provide full discovery. When a party chooses to refer to a document in a statement, the privacy of the relevant part of that document is lost. However, this does not grant the opposing party a right to inspect the entire document. The disclosing party is entitled to seal off or cover up irrelevant parts not referred to. The court also considered the late stage of the application, which would cause trial delays, and the marginal relevance of the unreferred entries to the issues in dispute. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case prominently cited the following precedents to establish legal principles: - Shun Kai Finance Co Ltd v Japan Leasing (HK) Ltd (No. 2) [2001] 1 HKC 636: Established fundamental differences between inspection under Order 24 Rule 10 and other forms of discovery, and that documents disclosed under this rule do not attract the protection of any implied undertaking. - Derby v Weldon (No. 2) (The Times, 20 October 1988, unreported): Held that a party who chooses to refer to a document in pleadings or affirmations destroys its privacy. - Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 756: Reaffirmed the principle that the compulsion exception is confined to documents a party is compelled, without choice, to disclose. - Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Arab Bank plc (25 February 1991, unreported): Explained that Order 24 Rule 10 inspection aims to enable full understanding of the other side's pleading, not general discovery. - Quilter v Heatly (1883) 23 Ch D 42: Established that the disclosing party has the liberty to seal up parts of documents not referred to. - Savings Bank v Gasco BV [1984] 1 WLR 271: Applied the principle from Quilter v Heatly. - Comfort Hotels Ltd v Wembley Stadium Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 872: Highlighted the voluntary nature of what is included in a witness statement. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the defendants' application for full inspection of Professor Liu's diary. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were only required to allow the defendants' legal advisors to inspect those parts of the Diary containing entries referred to in paragraph 15 of Professor Liu's witness statement. The court also took into account the very late stage of the application, which could lead to trial prolongation. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the limited scope of document inspection under Order 24 Rule 10, restricting it to parts explicitly referred to in a witness statement. The court emphasized that such inspection differs from general discovery, and the disclosing party retains the right to seal off irrelevant, unreferred content. Furthermore, the court's discretion in ordering inspection will consider the timing of the application and its potential impact on trial progress. --- ### 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.