YEW DIK MAN v. TSANG WING HONG AND ANOTHER

YEW DIK MAN v. TSANG WING HONG AND ANOTHER

The defendant is not required to translate bilingual documents; however, the defendant must provide translations of non‑bilingual documents used in the previous action to ensure fairness to the now unrepresented plaintiff, and for transcripts of evidence taken in Chinese the defendant should provide copies of the original audio recordings rather than translated English transcripts; translations ordered to be delivered by 5:00 p.m. on 24 September 1999.

Citation
YEW DIK MAN v. TSANG WING HONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: YEW DIK MAN; 1st Defendant: TSANG WING HONG; 2nd Defendant: WING HANG BANK LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Case Number
HCA2757/1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under Official Languages Ordinance (use of Language) Rules, Rule 5 / Interlocutory Hearing in Chambers (application for Translations)
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part: translations ordered for specified non‑bilingual documents and audio tapes ordered for Chinese evidence; no translation required for bilingual documents.
Legal Topics
Use of Language Rules, Translation of Documents, Access to Evidence, Transcripts Vs Audio Recordings, Translation Obligations
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Official Languages/translation Evidence Use of Language Rules Translation of Documents Access to Evidence Transcripts Vs Audio Recordings Translation Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEW DIK MAN

Plaintiff

TSANG WING HONG

1st Defendant

WING HANG BANK LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Official Languages Ordinance (use of Language) Rules, Rule 5 / Interlocutory Hearing in Chambers (application for Translations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is required under Rule 5 to provide translations of exhibits served in the other official language
  2. 2 Whether bilingual documents require separate translation
  3. 3 Whether transcripts of evidence taken in Chinese must be translated into English or whether provision of audio tapes suffices

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is not required to translate bilingual documents; however, the defendant must provide translations of non‑bilingual documents used in the previous action to ensure fairness to the now unrepresented plaintiff, and for transcripts of evidence taken in Chinese the defendant should provide copies of the original audio recordings rather than translated English transcripts; translations ordered to be delivered by 5:00 p.m. on 24 September 1999.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part: translations ordered for specified non‑bilingual documents and audio tapes ordered for Chinese evidence; no translation required for bilingual documents.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide translations of the documents used in the previous action and the specified documents ordered by the court by 5:00 p.m. on 24 September 1999.
  • Defendant to provide copies of the audio tapes of the evidence given in the previous action (evidence given in Chinese) instead of translating the English transcripts made from translations of the Chinese evidence.