未經申索的論點是否可在審訊中提出？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) 及其他人 訴 WU XIAODONG 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：馮驊法官 (Hon Eugene Fung J) - 判決日期：2025年10月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告針對多名被告提出的訴訟，其中一項核心爭議是原告的申索是否已過時效 (time-barred)。為此，原告援引《時效條例》(Limitation Ordinance) 第26條，主張其在2013年12月23日或24日之前，無法透過合理努力發現第六被告的欺詐行為。第六被告在庭審中提出，原告本應在更早的日期（最遲2009年）發現欺詐行為，並打算就此盤問原告證人。原告對此提出異議，認為這是一個未經申索書 (unpleaded case) 的論點。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，第六被告是否可以在未經申索書的情況下，在審訊中提出原告本應更早發現欺詐行為的論點。原告主張此論點未經申索，若允許提出將對其造成嚴重偏見。第六被告則認為，舉證責任在於原告，其僅是要求原告嚴格證明，且原告已將相關文件納入審訊文件夾，故應允許其盤問。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，第六被告的申索書僅是對原告依據《時效條例》第26(1)(a)條提出的主張進行了單純否認 (bare denial)，並要求原告嚴格證明。根據《高等法院規則》(RHC) 第18號命令第13條第5款，若被告意圖提出與原告版本不同的事實，必須在申索書中陳述其自身版本。第六被告提出原告本應更早發現欺詐行為的論點，已超越了單純質疑原告案件的範疇，構成一個積極的案情 (positive case)，因此必須在申索書中提出。法官亦強調，法庭不應允許就未經申索的議題傳召證據，即使是臨時性質的證據 (de bene esse basis)。 ### 引用案例與條文 Kwok Chin Wing v 21 Holdings Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 663，終審法院馬道立首席法官在判詞第21段指出，申索書界定審訊的議題並指導訴訟程序，不應允許就未經申索的議題提出證據。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定第六被告不獲准在本次審訊中爭辯原告本應在2013年12月23日之前發現第六被告的涉嫌欺詐行為。法庭認為，該論點未經申索，若允許提出將對原告造成嚴重偏見。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港民事訴訟中申索書 (pleadings) 的重要性，強調所有積極的案情 (positive case) 必須在申索書中明確提出，以避免對對方造成偏見。即使是針對時效抗辯中「合理努力發現」的論點，若被告欲提出原告本應更早發現欺詐，也需在申索書中闡明其版本，而非僅僅單純否認。 --- ### 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: CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) and others v WU XIAODONG and others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Eugene Fung J - Date of Judgment: 16 October 2025 ### Factual Background This case involves claims brought by the Plaintiffs against multiple Defendants. A central issue is whether the Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. To overcome this, the Plaintiffs rely on section 26 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), asserting they could not have discovered the 6th Defendant's fraud with reasonable diligence before 23 or 24 December 2013. The 6th Defendant argued during trial that the Plaintiffs could have discovered the fraud much earlier (by 2009 at the latest) and intended to cross-examine Plaintiffs' witnesses on this point. The Plaintiffs objected, arguing this constituted an unpleaded case. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question is whether the 6th Defendant can raise an unpleaded argument during trial that the Plaintiffs could have discovered the fraud earlier. The Plaintiffs contended that this unpleaded point would cause significant prejudice. The 6th Defendant argued that the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiffs, they were merely putting the Plaintiffs to strict proof, and relevant documents were already in the trial bundles, thus justifying cross-examination. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the 6th Defendant's pleading contained only a bare denial regarding the application of section 26(1)(a) of the Limitation Ordinance, putting the Plaintiffs to strict proof. Under RHC O.18 r.13(5), if a party intends to put forward a different version of events, they must state their own version in their defence. The 6th Defendant's suggestion that the Plaintiffs could have discovered the fraud earlier went beyond merely testing the Plaintiffs' case and constituted a positive case, which required pleading. The judge also emphasized that it is inappropriate to allow evidence on an unpleaded issue, even on a de bene esse basis. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Kwok Chin Wing v 21 Holdings Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 663, where Ma CJ stated at [21] that pleadings define the issues in a trial and dictate the course of proceedings, and it is inappropriate to raise unpleaded issues out of evidence. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled that the 6th Defendant is not permitted to contend in this trial that the Plaintiffs could have discovered the alleged fraud earlier than 23 December 2013. The court found that this point was unpleaded and allowing it would cause significant prejudice to the Plaintiffs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the critical role of pleadings in Hong Kong civil litigation. It underscores that any positive case must be clearly pleaded to avoid prejudice to the opposing party. Even when challenging a 'reasonable diligence' argument in a limitation defence, if a defendant wishes to assert that the plaintiff could have discovered fraud earlier, they must articulate their version in the pleadings, rather than relying on a bare denial. --- ### 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.