TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER

TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER

The objection was upheld and the question disallowed because it improperly invited the witness to make a conclusion (that accounting entries were fabricated to frame him) rather than elicit facts within his knowledge; the issue of whether a false case was put forward is a matter of conclusion for the tribunal, not factual testimony, and permitting the question would be irrelevant and a misuse of cross‑examination time.

Citation
TSANG YUK KIU AND ANOTHER v. LUCAS SASMITO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff (action 6631/1991); Defendant (action 9500/1994): Tsang Yuk Kiu; 2nd Plaintiff (action 6631/1991): Y K Construction Company Limited; 1st Defendant (action 6631/1991): Lucas Sasmito; 2nd Defendant (action 6631/1991): Tsang Kwong Fun; 1st Plaintiff (action 9500/1994): Asia Wide Properties Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (action 9500/1994): Lobley Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2000
Case Number
HCA6631/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (commercial/joint Venture Dispute) / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection During Trial (cross Examination)
Outcome
Objection upheld; question disallowed.
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Admissibility of Questions, Opinion Vs Fact Evidence, Fabricated Documents, Conspiracy Allegation
Source Language
EN
Evidence Civil Procedure Commercial Law Company Law Tax Law Cross Examination Admissibility of Questions Opinion Vs Fact Evidence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Yuk Kiu

1st Plaintiff (action 6631/1991); Defendant (action 9500/1994)

Y K Construction Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff (action 6631/1991)

Lucas Sasmito

1st Defendant (action 6631/1991)

Tsang Kwong Fun

2nd Defendant (action 6631/1991)

Asia Wide Properties Limited

1st Plaintiff (action 9500/1994)

Lobley Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff (action 9500/1994)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (commercial/joint Venture Dispute) / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection During Trial (cross Examination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a question in cross-examination that invites a witness to state a conclusion (that documents were fabricated to frame him) is admissible
  2. 2 Whether counsel may ask a witness to opine on whether documents were fabricated with intent to frame the witness
  3. 3 Proper scope and form of cross-examination questions and wasted trial time

Ratio Decidendi

The objection was upheld and the question disallowed because it improperly invited the witness to make a conclusion (that accounting entries were fabricated to frame him) rather than elicit facts within his knowledge; the issue of whether a false case was put forward is a matter of conclusion for the tribunal, not factual testimony, and permitting the question would be irrelevant and a misuse of cross‑examination time.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; question disallowed.

Orders

  • Objection sustained; the question put to PW1 disallowed.