CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

The applicant failed to adduce evidence of sufficient cogency to raise a prima facie case that R2’s signatures were forged or misdated; the Browne report based on scans without originals and limited control specimens was insufficient; available direct evidence and witness statements (including Ms Anita Lo and Mr Seeger) and uncertain whereabouts of originals did not justify forensic testing; granting the applications would cause unacceptable delay and prejudice to trial progress; accordingly leave to adduce handwriting expert evidence and to inspect originals is refused and the summons dismissed.

Citation
CWG v. MH AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: CWG; 1st Respondent: MH; 2nd Respondent: WH; 3rd Respondent: MVF LIMITED; 4th Respondent: WM; 5th Respondent: EH; 6th Respondent: LS LIMITED; 7th Respondent: BM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Case Number
HCMP643/2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Arising From Matrimonial Part IIA Proceedings Involving Offshore Company Assets / Mid Trial Interlocutory Applications (handwriting Expert and Inspection)
Outcome
Applicant's summons dismissed; Handwriting Expert Application and Inspection Application denied
Legal Topics
Handwriting Expert Evidence, Inspection of Documents, Forgery Allegation, Discovery, Trial Management, Powers of Attorney, Offshore Company Records
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Company Law Forensic Evidence Handwriting Expert Evidence Inspection of Documents Forgery Allegation +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWG

Applicant

MH

1st Respondent

WH

2nd Respondent

MVF LIMITED

3rd Respondent

WM

4th Respondent

EH

5th Respondent

LS LIMITED

6th Respondent

BM

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Arising From Matrimonial Part IIA Proceedings Involving Offshore Company Assets / Mid Trial Interlocutory Applications (handwriting Expert and Inspection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce handwriting expert evidence under Order 38 RHC
  2. 2 Whether originals should be produced/inspected under Order 24 RHC for forensic examination
  3. 3 Whether applicant has adduced evidence of sufficient cogency to raise a prima facie case of forgery or of documents being signed on different dates

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to adduce evidence of sufficient cogency to raise a prima facie case that R2’s signatures were forged or misdated; the Browne report based on scans without originals and limited control specimens was insufficient; available direct evidence and witness statements (including Ms Anita Lo and Mr Seeger) and uncertain whereabouts of originals did not justify forensic testing; granting the applications would cause unacceptable delay and prejudice to trial progress; accordingly leave to adduce handwriting expert evidence and to inspect originals is refused and the summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's summons dismissed; Handwriting Expert Application and Inspection Application denied

Orders

  • Applicant to pay costs of this application to 1st and 2nd Respondents and if any to the 3rd Respondent
  • No order for production/inspection of originals for the purposes sought by applicant