EGNER DAVID PARKS AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

EGNER DAVID PARKS AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

The summons for leave to take evidence by VCF was dismissed: the 4th Plaintiff's deliberate failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and Mr Gardner's business convenience do not amount to sound reasons to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony; their evidence is contested on credibility; the application was late without adequate explanation and caused prejudice, so VCF was refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 351
Parties
1st Plaintiff: EGNER DAVID PARKS; 2nd Plaintiff: FEENEY MATTHEW SEAN; 3rd Plaintiff: BARNES PHILLIP RUSSELL; 4th Plaintiff: MORRIS GREG CARLTON; 1st Defendant: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
HCA247/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (trial) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application to Admit Evidence by Video Conferencing
Outcome
Summons dated 3 January 2023 dismissed
Legal Topics
Video Conferencing Evidence, Witness Attendance, Delay, Credibility, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Public Health/entry Requirements Video Conferencing Evidence Witness Attendance Delay Credibility Case Management

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EGNER DAVID PARKS

1st Plaintiff

FEENEY MATTHEW SEAN

2nd Plaintiff

BARNES PHILLIP RUSSELL

3rd Plaintiff

MORRIS GREG CARLTON

4th Plaintiff

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED

1st Defendant

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (trial) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application to Admit Evidence by Video Conferencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether witnesses may give evidence by video conferencing facilities (VCF) as an exception to in‑court testimony
  2. 2 Whether refusal to comply with Hong Kong COVID-19 vaccination/entry requirements justifies VCF
  3. 3 Whether business or personal convenience justifies VCF

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for leave to take evidence by VCF was dismissed: the 4th Plaintiff's deliberate failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and Mr Gardner's business convenience do not amount to sound reasons to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony; their evidence is contested on credibility; the application was late without adequate explanation and caused prejudice, so VCF was refused.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 3 January 2023 dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Parties to be heard as to costs