不符裁決的證供是否應從紀錄中刪除？申請獲批

### 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 鍾志強 及 Enhan Technology Holdings International Company Limited - 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10月28日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告廣州綠色盈康生物工程有限公司及中山大學，與被告天維健康產品國際有限公司、鍾志強及盈康科技控股國際有限公司之間的訴訟。法庭於2004年9月23日發出裁決理由書，並邀請各方就證人DW2於2004年9月10日下午作出的證供，是否應從紀錄中刪除提交陳詞。原告方要求刪除部分證供，認為其與法庭早前的裁決不符。被告方則認為法庭的裁決並未禁止其就產品重新包裝的方式提供證據，且反對提出過晚。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，證人DW2於2004年9月10日下午作出的部分證供，是否與法庭早前就證據可受性（admissibility of evidence）的裁決相悖，應否從法庭紀錄中刪除。原告方認為該證供旨在質疑LX-28的真實性，而這已被法庭裁定不應再提出。被告方則辯稱，其證供僅涉及重新包裝的過程，且反對提出過晚。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析認為，被告方提出關於重新包裝的證據，其唯一相關性在於質疑LX-28作為被告銷售產品真實性的代表性。這顯然構成挑戰LX-28的額外證據，而法庭已裁定不應再提出此類證據。法庭駁回被告方關於反對提出過晚的論點，指出由於法庭裁決理由是稍後才給出，各方可能未能即時完全理解其影響。法庭擁有固有司法管轄權（inherent jurisdiction）刪除不應被接納的證據，以確保審訊的公正性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定，證人DW2於2004年9月10日非官方謄本第38至39頁的證供應從紀錄中刪除，因其不應被接納。至於2004年9月9日非官方謄本第41頁關於全息圖（hologram）的證供，被告方已表示不依賴。關於有效日期（expiry date）的證供，法庭鼓勵雙方在審訊恢復前討論解決。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了法庭在審訊過程中，即使在理由稍後才給出的情況下，仍有固有司法管轄權刪除不應被接納的證據，以維持審訊的公正性。這也提醒律師在庭上應密切留意法庭裁決的潛在影響，並及時提出異議。法庭鼓勵雙方在審訊恢復前，就未決的證據爭議進行討論，以尋求解決方案。 --- ### 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 Chung Chee Keung and Enhan Technology Holdings International Company Limited - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 28 October 2004 ### Factual Background This case involves a dispute between Guangzhou Green-Enhan Bio-Engineering Co. Ltd and Sun Yat-Sen University (Plaintiffs) and Green Power Health Products International Co. Limited, Chung Chee Keung, and Enhan Technology Holdings International Company Limited (Defendants). Following a ruling on 23 September 2004, the court invited submissions on whether certain evidence given by witness DW2 on the afternoon of 10 September 2004 should be expunged from the record. The Plaintiffs sought to expunge parts of the evidence, arguing it was inconsistent with the court's earlier ruling. The Defendants contended that the ruling did not preclude evidence on repackaging and that the objection was raised too late. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether certain evidence given by witness DW2 on the afternoon of 10 September 2004 was inconsistent with the court's prior ruling on the admissibility of evidence and should therefore be expunged from the court record. The Plaintiffs argued that the evidence aimed to challenge the authenticity of LX-28, which the court had ruled against. The Defendants maintained their evidence only concerned the repackaging process and that the objection was untimely. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed that the only relevance of the Defendants' evidence regarding repackaging was to challenge LX-28 as a true representation of the product sold. This clearly constituted additional evidence challenging LX-28, which the court had ruled should not be led. The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the objection was too late, noting that since reasons for the ruling were given later, parties might not have immediately understood its full implications. The court possesses inherent jurisdiction to expunge evidence that should not have been admitted, ensuring the fairness of the trial. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled that the evidence from pages 38 to 39 of the unofficial transcript dated 10 September 2004, given by witness DW2, should be expunged from the record as it should not have been admitted. Regarding the evidence on holograms on page 41 of the 9 September 2004 transcript, the Defendants indicated they would not rely on it. For the evidence concerning the expiry date, the court encouraged parties to discuss and resolve the matter before the trial resumes. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the court's inherent jurisdiction to expunge inadmissible evidence, even when reasons for a ruling are provided later, to maintain trial fairness. It also serves as a reminder for counsel to be vigilant about the implications of court rulings and to raise objections promptly. The court encouraged parties to resolve outstanding evidentiary disputes through discussion before the trial resumes. --- ### 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.