AD (also known as AT) v. RT

AD (also known as AT) v. RT

The application was dismissed because the witness failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the general rule of in‑court testimony; the witness's evidence is crucial and credibility will be heavily disputed, and permitting VCF would risk prejudice to the respondent in cross-examination and undermine the solemnity and effectiveness of the trial, so the court exercised its discretion to refuse VCF and ordered costs nisi against the petitioner.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2329
Parties
Petitioner: AD (also known as AT); Respondent: RT; 1st Intervener: RET; 2nd Intervener: MT; 3rd Intervener: RKM; 4th Intervener: SS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2024
Case Number
HCMC1/2022
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (matrimonial Causes No 1 of 2022) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Witness Evidence by Video Conference (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs order nisi made in favour of the respondent
Legal Topics
Video Conferencing Evidence, Witness Attendance, Credibility Assessment, Prejudice, Costs Order Nisi
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Family Law International Witness Attendance Costs Video Conferencing Evidence Witness Attendance Credibility Assessment +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 6 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AD (also known as AT)

Petitioner

RT

Respondent

RET

1st Intervener

MT

2nd Intervener

RKM

3rd Intervener

SS

4th Intervener

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (matrimonial Causes No 1 of 2022) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Witness Evidence by Video Conference (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow a witness to give evidence by video-conferencing facilities
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown sound reason to depart from the starting point that evidence is given in court
  3. 3 Whether allowing VCF would prejudice the respondent's ability to test credibility by cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the witness failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the general rule of in‑court testimony; the witness's evidence is crucial and credibility will be heavily disputed, and permitting VCF would risk prejudice to the respondent in cross-examination and undermine the solemnity and effectiveness of the trial, so the court exercised its discretion to refuse VCF and ordered costs nisi against the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs order nisi made in favour of the respondent

Orders

  • The application for leave to adduce oral evidence of Mr S by video‑conferencing is dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that the petitioner shall bear the respondent's costs of the application; the order nisi will become absolute in the absence of application to vary within 14 days