PEI ZHENG MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ANOTHER v. CHINA PUI CHING EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD AND OTHERS
The court held that the historians' expert reports were inadmissible because they were irrelevant to the determinative issue of goodwill and would not add anything to the defendants' case; accordingly the reports were ordered expunged from the court file.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- PEI ZHENG MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ANOTHER v. CHINA PUI CHING EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 2nd Defendant; Defendant: 4th Defendant
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 7 September 2009
- Case Number
- HCA946/2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Evidence Admissibility Dispute / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Reports (decision)
- Outcome
- Expert reports of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants ruled inadmissible and expunged from the court file
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Expunction of Court Documents, Goodwill and Nationalization, Relevance of Historical Expert Testimony
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff
1st Defendant
Defendant
2nd Defendant
Defendant
4th Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Evidence Admissibility Dispute / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Reports (decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether historians' expert reports were admissible in evidence
- 2 Whether evidence concerning the purpose behind nationalization and dissemination of Christianity was relevant to the issue of goodwill
- 3 Whether the expert evidence would assist the court or merely repeat matters of common knowledge
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the historians' expert reports were inadmissible because they were irrelevant to the determinative issue of goodwill and would not add anything to the defendants' case; accordingly the reports were ordered expunged from the court file.
Court Disposition
Expert reports of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants ruled inadmissible and expunged from the court file
Orders
- The expert reports prepared by the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants are inadmissible
- Those expert reports are expunged from the court file
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj Wck-Nx[) WckYe WckYe WckYe } gP WckYe } gP WckFUx[b WckFUx[b --------------------------------- R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N ------------------------------------------------------ AUTONUMOUT On 2 September 2009, I ruled that the expert reports prepared by the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants historians, 0uYe Wck-Nx[!hi Wck-Nx[a Wck-Nx[i Wck-Nx[!hw Wck-Nx[b ^,{ N AS N-Nx[, Wck-Nx[. Wck. Wckw 0uYe Wck-Nx[i 0uYe the purpose of disseminating Christianity. But as pointed out in the course of submissions, that is simply irrelevant.) They also dealt with what they perceived to be the policy behind the nationalization in 1953. AUTONUMOUT But what is pertinent to the question if the goodwill in Wckh being the case, the evidence of the two professors is irrelevant and will not add anything further to the defendants case. Conclusion AUTONUMOUT For these reasons, I ruled that their experts reports are inadmissible and ordered them to be expunged from the court file. (J. Poon) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Felix H. Pao, instructed by Messrs JSM, for the Plaintiffs Mr K.M. Chong and Ms Emma Wong, instructed by Messrs David Y.Y. Fung & Co., for the 1st, 2nd and 4th 1udk 1udk &`#$ XoFQ XoFQ XoFQ XoFQ z86 BK&rV w*/0 1~jB q3Bz3 5vRJb.pM XmO` #BQR =28T =Vu[d /r|m" ~.*q ~.*q =28T 5vRJ /r|m /r|m w*/0 w*/0 =Vu[ T`Z_ & 6" HCA.dot Administrator Microsoft Word 9.0 J@o/ Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8