CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

Given R2's central and contested role, the late and extensive nature of her affirmations, the insufficiency of medical evidence to justify inability to give evidence by video-link, and the prejudice to the Wife, the court dismissed R2’s application and excluded all her affirmations and witness statement unless R2...

Source-derived case information.

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
16 October 2012
Case Number
HCMP643/2012
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Proceedings Under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (part IIA Application) / Hearing on Admissibility of Out of Court Affirmations During Trial (in Chambers)
Outcome
R2’s summons dismissed; all affirmations and R2’s witness statement excluded unless R2 attends for cross-examination via video-link
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Cross Examination, Video Link Evidence, Admissibility of Affidavits/affirmations, Joinder
Source Language
en
Family Law Evidence Civil Procedure Hearsay Cross Examination Video Link Evidence Admissibility of Affidavits/affirmations Joinder

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Matrimonial Proceedings Under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (part IIA Application) / Hearing on Admissibility of Out of Court Affirmations During Trial (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affirmations and a witness statement of R2 may be admitted without the maker attending for cross-examination under O.38 r.2 RHC and s.47 Evidence Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether R2 should be required to give evidence by video-link given medical reports
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of R2’s affirmations would be prejudicial to the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Given R2's central and contested role, the late and extensive nature of her affirmations, the insufficiency of medical evidence to justify inability to give evidence by video-link, and the prejudice to the Wife, the court dismissed R2’s application and excluded all her affirmations and witness statement unless R2 attends for cross-examination via video-link; exclusion was not prejudicial to the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

R2’s summons dismissed; all affirmations and R2’s witness statement excluded unless R2 attends for cross-examination via video-link

Orders

  • All affirmations of R2 including her witness statement excluded from evidence unless R2 attends for cross-examination through video-link
  • Affirmations may only be read at trial if R2 attends for cross-examination via video-link