Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness attendance and credibility

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA246/2014

Application dismissed: the court exercised its discretion to refuse VCF because the 4th Plaintiff's failure to meet entry vaccination requirements was a voluntary choice not a sound reason to depart from in‑court evidence; Mr Gardner's business commitments and personal convenience did not justify VCF; both witnesses' evidence was contested on credibility and important to be heard in the formal court setting; the application was late with inadequate explanation for delay.
19 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA244/2014

Application dismissed. The court held VCF is an exception and no sound reasons were demonstrated: the 4th Plaintiff deliberately chose not to meet longstanding entry vaccination requirements and that choice does not justify departure from in‑court testimony, and Mr Gardner's asserted business convenience and lack of prior planning were insufficient. Both witnesses' evidence is contested and raises credibility issues that require in‑person examination. The application was also filed late without adequate explanation; delay and prejudice weighed against granting VCF.
19 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA245/2014

Application dismissed because applicants failed to provide a sound reason to depart from the in-person rule: the 4th Plaintiff's voluntary failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and the witness's business convenience are inadequate; both witnesses face contested credibility issues that require the court's solemn atmosphere; the application was late and unexplained, causing prejudice to case management.
1 Dec 2021

SETO SHA LI v. LAI JIN TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1442/2016

Leave was granted for Lai Lap Ming to give oral evidence by VCF because his residence in Taiwan, the requirement of 35 days quarantine if he were to travel, and overlapping Taiwan civil and criminal proceedings during that quarantine constituted good reasons justifying VCF; the court found no serious prejudice to the other parties and the balance of fairness and efficiency favored VCF.
20 May 2020

TSANG WOON MING v. LAI KA LIM also known as LAI KAI LIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW407/2016

Application refused in respect of Lin and Ho because the application was late, lacked good reason (witnesses could have quarantined after advance notice of GAP expiry), convenience and business commitments do not justify VCF for witnesses whose credibility is central, and VCF would cause prejudice and impair proper assessment of evidence; application granted for Ms Li Biyun because there was accepted evidence she could not travel and practical arrangements for a single VCF witness could be made without causing adjournment or prejudice.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

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

SETO SHA LI v. LAI JIN TONG AND ANOTHER

TSANG WOON MING v. LAI KA LIM also known as LAI KAI LIM AND OTHERS