In Poon v Poon, the defendant successfully applied to have certain paragraphs excluded from witness statements filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis that they referred to without prejudice conversations and meetings. The judgment applies established principles that underpin the protection given to without prejudice communications and demonstrates the court's reluctance to allow a party to 'cherry pick' from parts of wide-ranging discussions that were clearly undertaken on a without prejudice basis.
In Zhang Hong Li & Ors v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd & Ors, the Court of Final Appeal interpreted a so-called 'anti-Bartlett clause' in a trust deed and held that it excluded the imposition of a "high-level supervisory duty" on the trustee to supervise or review the investment decisions of an investment adviser appointed by the underlying private investment company.
The monetary jurisdiction for civil cases heard by Hong Kong's busy District Court was significantly increased in December 2018. In light of this, the District Court now determines more complex and important civil cases. Therefore, a good case can be made for the abolition of the so-called 'Two-Thirds Rule'. If this is a step too far, a legislative provision should be implemented that provides judges with a wide and flexible discretion to depart from the rule where appropriate in all the circumstances.
In an important and interesting judgment, the High Court declined to admit an overseas barrister unless he appeared with a local barrister. The applicant had applied for ad hoc admission to conduct a case in Hong Kong, on the basis that he would appear with the two solicitor advocates who had charge of the case. Therefore, they sought the removal of what is a usual condition to the grant of ad hoc admission – namely, that the applicant (an English Queen's Counsel) appear with a local barrister.
Mathnasium Center Licensing, LLC v Chang is another recent example of the courts sentencing makers of false statements of truth to a period of imprisonment for contempt of court. In this case, the defendant signed a false statement of truth in a defence filed on behalf of a company which he controlled and which was being sued by the plaintiff. The court found that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant must have known about the falsity of the admission and thus found him to be in contempt of court.