17 Feb 2023
The application was dismissed because the medical evidence was insufficient and internally inconsistent, did not establish a sound reason to depart from the default of in‑court testimony, and the witness's credibility was likely to be seriously contested requiring in‑court examination under the solemn atmosphere of the court.
1 Dec 2021
Leave was granted because the court exercised its discretion in favor of VCF after concluding the applicant supplied valid reasons: the witness resides in Taiwan and pandemic quarantine requirements (total 35 days) would likely prevent physical attendance; concurrent civil and criminal proceedings in Taiwan during the quarantine risked loss of rights or penalties; prejudice to the other party was not shown to be serious given the timing of the application; thus VCF was necessary to ensure fair and efficient disposal of the proceedings.
28 Feb 2020
The Court held that, applying a purposive construction to the High Court Ordinance and the Rules of the High Court and exercising its active case management powers under Order 1A and Order 1B, it was permissible and appropriate to direct a telephone directions hearing during the General Adjournment Period and to grant leave for a witness to give evidence by video‑conferencing using the Technology Court where this furthers the underlying objectives and fairness of the proceedings.
28 Feb 2020
The Court held that telephone directions hearings are permissible and appropriate in the GAP and that the Rules and HCO should be given a purposive construction to permit remote hearings; active case management under Order 1A authorises use of telephone and video technology where it furthers underlying objectives and fairness, and the judge directed a telephone directions hearing (11:00 on 25 February 2020) and permitted arrangements for a witness to give evidence by video‑conferencing using the Technology Court.
28 Feb 2020
The Court has power under its case management duties and the Rules to conduct telephone directions hearings and to permit witnesses to give evidence by video‑conferencing where it promotes the underlying objectives (expeditious, cost‑effective and fair disposal), and those measures are permissible during the Covid‑19 General Adjournment Period; accordingly the Court directed a telephone directions hearing and granted leave for the specified witness to give evidence by video‑link by consent.
28 Feb 2020
The Court held that telephone directions hearings and the taking of evidence by video‑conferencing are permissible under the Court's case management powers (Orders 1A and 1B and inherent jurisdiction), are consistent with the underlying objectives of the Rules of the High Court, and may be directed where they promote the fair and efficient disposal of proceedings and meet public‑health necessities; accordingly the Court directed a telephone directions hearing and permitted use of Technology Court facilities for the witness by video‑link.