Hedge Funds Investment Management Ltd vs Hedge Intro International Ltd (MA 309.2014) [2014] SCSC 404 (22 October 2014)
Section 11C of the Evidence Act applies only to criminal matters, and the applicant failed to satisfy the required statutory conditions for granting leave to take evidence through video-link.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] SCSC 404
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hedge Funds Investment Management Ltd; Defendant: Hedgeintro International Ltd
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- MA 309.2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Motion Ruling
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Video Link Evidence, Expert Witness Testimony, Application of Evidence Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hedge Funds Investment Management Ltd
Plaintiff
Hedgeintro International Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 11 of the Evidence Act, Cap 74 permits video-link evidence in civil matters
- 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions for video-link evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Section 11C of the Evidence Act applies only to criminal matters, and the applicant failed to satisfy the required statutory conditions for granting leave to take evidence through video-link.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- motion for leave to take evidence through video-link is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Civil Side: MA 309/2014 (arising in CC 04/2012) [2014] SCSC 404 HEDGE FUNDS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD Plaintiff versus HEDGEINTRO INTERNATIONAL LTD Defendant Heard: 22nd October 2014 Counsel: Mr. Rouillon for plaintiff Mr. Renaud and Mr. Derjacques for defendant Delivered: 22nd October 2014 RULING ON MOTION D. Karunakaran, Acting Chief Justice [1] This ruling relates to the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff dated the 14th October 2014 in which the plaintiff seeks leave of this court for an urgent hearing for the examination and cross-examination of an expert witness of the plaintiff, who is in the UK to be carried out via a Video or Skype connection as provided for under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, Cap 74. [2] I gave careful consideration to the submission made by both counsel on both sides in this matter. First of all, I quite agree with the submission made by Mr. Derjaques that 11 C of the Evidence Act applies only to criminal matters. It is so evident that 11(1), 11(2)A refers to a person. The term “person” should be interpreted to accord with the meaning conveyed by the term used in the previous sub-sections, which refers to an “accused person”. [3] Accordingly, I hold that 11 C applies to criminal matters. In any event to satisfy court the applicant has to meet the three conditions: (i) It is not reasonably practicable for a person to attend the court in person and give evidence ; and (ii) The court should be of the opinion that it is desirable and practicable that the person should give evidences through video-link ; and (iii) That the arrangement would not prejudice a party to the proceedings. In my considered view, the applicant has failed to establish any of said three conditions required to succeed in his application for leave to take evidence through video-link. [4] In the circumstances, I dismiss this motion. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 22nd October 2014. D Karunakaran Acting Chief Justice 2