Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Ho Lai Chuen, Cadia T/a Resolution Software Consultants v Xerox (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date11 December 2001
Year2001
Judgement NumberHCA6454/1997
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCA006454/1997 HO LAI CHUEN, CADIA t/a RESOLUTION SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS v. XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD.

HCA006454/1997

HCA6454/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. HCA 6454 OF 1997

-----------------------

BETWEEN
HO LAI CHUEN, CADIA TRADING AS RESOLUTION SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS Plaintiff
AND
XEROX (HONG KONG) LIMITED Defendant

-----------------------

Coram: Deputy Judge Andrew Cheung in Court

Date of hearing: 11 December 2001 at 11.31 am

------------

R U L I N G

------------

1. This is the seventh day of a trial between the parties relating to an alleged breach of contract for the sale and purchase of a certain computer software program. Ever since the first day of the trial, the defendant's side is assisted by LiveNote-taker, providing instantaneous on screen transcript service of the trial.

2. Moreover, at the end of each day, a hard copy of the transcript is provided for the use by the defendant which engaged the LiveNote-taker. With the agreement of the plaintiff's side, the court has also been made available the use of a laptop displaying the instantaneous transcript produced by the LiveNote-taker, as well as a hard copy of the transcript on a daily basis.

3. I emphasise the agreement of the plaintiff because, without the agreement of the plaintiff, as I had said, or ruled, on the first day of the hearing, I would not have allowed the laptop to remain on my table or allowed the provision of the transcript in the form of a hard copy to me on a daily basis, my view being that this would amount to a unilateral communication with the court by one party.

4. This morning Mr Kerr, counsel for the plaintiff, made an application for discovery of the LiveNote transcript, both in relation to the soft form as well as the hard form - or the soft copy as well as the hard copy.

5. He relied on Documentary Evidence (7th edition) by Charles Hollander QC and Tom Adam, paragraph 9-12 and paragraph 9-13, to the effect that transcript of proceedings in open court, or for that matter in chambers, taken by anyone, including shorthand writers and, for that purpose, including LiveNote-taker, does not attract any legal professional privilege and is therefore liable to be disclosed by the party engaging in the note-taking process.

6. The relevant passages in the textbook relied on a number of older English authorities, including Re Worthwick (1888) 38 Ch D 370, Rawstone v Preston (1885) 30 Ch D 116, as well as Ainsworth v Wilding [1900] 2 Ch 315, all to the effect that no privilege attached to these shorthand notes or transcripts and they should be disclosed by the party obtaining the notes or the transcripts.

7. Mr Kerr therefore argued that, similarly, the LiveNote transcript obtained by the defendant in the present case should be disclosed.

8. This application was objected to by Mr Jat, counsel for the defendant. Mr Jat argued and pointed out that in all those authorities relied on by Mr Kerr, they related to discovery of transcript obtained in a previous set of proceedings, and therefore Mr Jat drew the distinction that, whereas the transcript could be relevant to either the issues in the second action or the issue of credibility in the second action, and therefore the transcript in the first action should be disclosed, the situation is different when one is talking about discovery of the transcript of the trial in the very action in which the trial took place. So Mr Jat argued that the transcript of the trial itself could not be relevant to the issues in the action.

9. For my part, I cannot see any logical distinction between the two. Either the transcript is relevant to the issues, or it is not relevant to the issues. Either the transcript is relevant to the question of credibility, or it is not relevant to the question of credibility. The fact that it so happens that the issues or the question of credibility arose in a second action does not alter the fact or the question of relevancy. A second action can raise precisely the same issues as an earlier one.

10. Moreover, I do not agree with Mr Jat when he argued that, at trial, it is only what a witness orally said and how he or she behaved, i.e. the demeanour, which would be relevant to a trial judge. In my judgment, a record of what the witness said is a document relevant by itself to, for example,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT