{"id":"court_ctb_1409_15","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1409,"sub_number":15,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-01-30","title":"\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ | i
m |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n| i
m | | |\n|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| A | | A |\n| B | 8/
H
C
M
P
14
7
2
0
11 | B |\n| c | IN
T
H
IG
E
H
H
C
O
U
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
H
O
N
G
K
O
G
S
N
P
E
C
IA
L
A
D
M
IN
IS
T
R
A
T
R
E
G
IO
IV
E
N | |\n| D | C
O
U
R
T
O
F
F
IR
S
T
IN
S
T
A
N
C
E
M
IS
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
O
C
G
S
P
R
E
E
D
IN
N
O
14
7
8
O
F
20
11 | D |\n| E | | E |\n| F | A
IN
T
H
E
M
T
T
E
R
f
V
II
I
P
f
t
o
ar
o
th
id
rd
in
E
O
C
8
e
v
en
ce
an
ce
ap
,
, | F |\n| G | L
f
K
H
aw
s
on
g
o
on
g | G |\n| H | d
an | H |\n| 1 | IN
T
H
E
M
A
T
T
E
R
f
O
rd
f
70
o
er
o
th
le
th
R
f
i
gh
C
H
rt
e
s
o
e
u
ou | |\n| | d
an | J |\n| K | A
IN
T
H
E
M
T
T
E
R
f
ci
il
o
a
v
ed
in
d
in
b
ef
p
ro
ce
g
n
ow
p
en
g
o
re | K |\n| L | io
th
S
C
f
th
S
f
rt
ta
te
e
p
er
r
u
ou
o
e
o
al
if
ia
C
fo
th
f
C
L
t
or
n
e
r
ou
n
y
o
o
s | 1. |\n| M | A
el
iv
is
io
C
al
D
tr
n
g
es
en
n
—
'
le
S
M
sk
h
d
C
ta
rt
n
y
o
ou
ou
se
u
n
er
C
B
4
2
82
9
8 | |\n| N | ca
se
n
o | N |\n| ° | B
E
T
W
E
E
N | 0 |\n| p | A
N
G
E
L
A
C
H
E
N
al
k
so
n
ow
n
as
A
G
A
N
E
L
C
S
A
B
E
L
L
A
A
li
t
p
p
ca
n | p |\n| Q | d
an | Q |\n| R | 1S
V
IV
IE
N
C
H
E
N
R
d
t
t
es
p
o
n
en | R |\n| S | l
IS
S
S
A
O
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
E
L
IM
IT
E
D
d
W
2
R
t
es
p
o
n
en | S |\n| T | | |\n| U | | U |\n| V | | V |\n\n| A | -2
- | A | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|\n| B | | B | |\n| C | ef
i
gh
ok
B
D
H
C
L
i
h
b
Ju
d
C
t
rt
or
e
:
ep
u
y
ou
n
am
er
s
g
e
D
f
ri
2
8
H
N
b
20
11
at
e
o
ea
n
g
:
o
v
em
er | c | |\n| D | f
h
d
i
D
d
f
i
si
D
7
b
20
11
at
D
e
o
an
n
g
ow
n
o
ec
on
:
ec
em
er | D | |\n| E | | E | |\n| F | C
IS
IO
D
E
N | F | |\n| C | | G | |\n| H | 1.
h
ed
i
T
ed
i
th
l
f
f
et
te
t
es
e
p
ro
ce
n
g
s
ar
e
co
n
ce
rn
r
o
re
qu
es
w
a
or | H | |\n| | i
i
al
j
d
i
ci
al
si
i
ed
b
th
te
at
b
l
i
i
st
H
L
A
L
n
rn
on
u
as
an
ce
ss
u
e
y
on
ou
ra
e
u
s
av
n
,
d
f
th
al
i
f
i
i
Ju
C
S
C
L
el
A
C
U
i
d
rt
S
t
te
ta
te
g
e
o
e
or
n
a
p
er
or
u
ou
o
s
n
g
es
ou
n
y
n
s
,
, | I | |\n| | ch
2
0
11
(\"
th
9
M
f
)
L
R
t\"
et
te
on
ar
e
r
o
eq
es
u | j | |\n| K | h
2.
T
f
ek
th
L
R
si
f
th
i
gh
H
et
te
t
C
st
e
rt
r
o
se
e
eq
u
es
s
as
an
ce
o
e
ou | K | |\n| L | f
K
el
th
H
d
b
ef
R
i
i
to
ts
to
o
on
g
on
g
co
m
p
e
es
p
on
en
ap
p
ea
r
an
or
e
ex
am
n
er
n | L | |\n| NI | H
K
i
i
d
d
d
d
f
th
f
to
to
ts
on
g
on
g
g
v
e
ev
en
ce
p
ro
ce
an
u
o
cu
m
en
or
e
p
rp
o
se
o
u
th
d
i
ed
i
i
th
C
al
i
f
i
S
i
('
th
al
i
f
i
C
C
rt
e
en
n
ro
ce
n
s
n
e
or
n
a
u
er
or
e
or
n
a
ou | | |\n| N | p
g
p
g
p
C
\"
)
C
C
4
2
82
9
8
(\"
th
al
i
f
i
N
B
C
A
i
\"
)
rt
ct
ou
as
e
o
e
or
n
a
on
, | | |\n| 0 | 3.
B
O
ri
i
i
S
d
ed
4
A
2
0
1
1
te
at
at
st
y
an
ex
p
ar
g
n
n
g
u
m
m
on
s
gu
u
, | 0 | |\n| p | th
A
l
i
l
i
ed
f
d
i
f
th
P
d
2
d
t
t
R
t
ts
e
p
p
ca
n
ap
p
or
an
n
re
sp
ec
or
er
o
e
an
es
p
on
en | P | |\n| | i
ef
f
th
L
f
R
O
b
2
0
1
1
i
t
5
S
M
H
to
to
et
te
t.
te
te
g
v
e
ec
e
r
o
eq
u
es
n
ep
m
er
as
r
u
,
d
th
l
i
ti
d
d
ed
th
al
i
te
in
at
te
an
e
ca
on
an
or
er
a
:
r | | |\n| R | gr
ap
p
, | R | |\n| | th
(
i
)
P
d
d
b
ef
i
ch
d
i
t
R
M
R
Z
h
t
at
te
e
es
p
on
en
n
or
e
m
m
em
r.
ar
w
o
,
i
th
i
d
E
i
(\"
th
i
\"
)
b
i
ed
E
te
to
s
e
o
n
x
am
n
er
e
x
am
n
er
e
ex
am
n | | |\n| T | ap
p
,
h
gi
th
i
th
i
f
i
ed
i
th
at
to
te
st
at
te
on
o
v
e
e
m
on
on
e
m
rs
sp
ec
n
e
y | 1' | |\n| | f
L
R
et
te
t
r
o
eq
es
;
u | | |\n| V | | | |\n\n| A | | -
- | A |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| B | (
i
i
) | 1s
t
th
R
d
al
b
ri
i
th
h
d
d
th
ti
t
e
at
es
p
on
en
so
n
g
w
er
an
p
ro
ce
u
e
m
e | B |\n| c | | f
h
i
th
d
i
ch
ed
l
te
st
S
A
f
th
ts
t
t
o
er
m
on
y
e
o
cu
m
en
se
ou
e
n
u
o
e | |\n| D | | L
f
f
R
i
ti
d
et
te
i
b
th
t
r
o
eq
es
or
u
n
sp
ec
on
an
co
p
y
n
g
e
y
l
i
A
t'
ti
d
ta
p
p
ca
n
s
an
re
p
re
se
n
v
e; | D |\n| E | | | E |\n| F | (
i
i
i
) | th
f
f
i
d
i
sh
eh
l
d
d
/
h
ct
ot
st
e
o
ce
rs
re
or
s,
ar
o
er
s
an
or
er
p
er
so
n
s
m
o
,
k
l
ed
b
l
f
th
2
'
d
d
R
b
ef
th
t
at
te
n
ow
g
ea
e
o
e
es
p
on
en
n
or
e
e | F |\n| c | | E
i
d
d
i
f
th
d
i
ts
t
t
x
am
n
er
an
co
p
es
p
ro
u
ce
o
e
o
cu
m
en
se
ou
n | G |\n| H | | ch
ed
l
S
B
f
th
f
L
R
f
i
ti
d
et
te
t
e
u
o
e
r
o
eq
u
es
or
n
sp
ec
on
an
i
th
l
i
b
A
t'
ti
ta
co
p
n
g
y
e
p
p
ca
n
s
y
re
p
re
se
n
v
e | H |\n| I | | | I |\n| J | 4
i
d
th
O
as
e
e | th
i
1s
In
l
i
ti
b
ef
th
t
d
ek
R
t
to
t
s
ap
p
ca
on
or
e
m
e,
e
es
p
on
en
se
s
se
rd
f
M
H
i
(
th
O
rd
\"
)
i
f
te
i
h
t
er
o
as
r
u
e
er
n
so
ar
co
n
ce
rn
s
as
er
on | J |\n| K | th
d
th
at
e
gr
ou
n
s
: | | K |\n| L | (
i
) | th
l
i
h
f
ai
l
ed
A
ak
f
l
l
d
f
k
d
i
l
f
t
to
e
p
p
ca
n
as
m
e
u
an
ra
n
sc
o
su
re
o | L |\n| M | | i
al
th
l
i
ti
d
at
te
at
to
m
rs
er
m
e
ap
p
ca
on
;
an | M |\n| N | (
i
i
) | th
rd
O
i
i
i
d
ab
f
f
at
e
er
s
ex
ou
s,
op
p
re
ss
v
e
v
an
an
u
se
o
p
ro
ce
ss
o | N |\n| 0 | | th
rt
e
co
u | 0 |\n| p | k
d
B
ac
g
ro
u
n | | p |\n| Q | | | Q |\n| R | 5.
si
f
th
st
er
o
e | h
T
A
l
i
ad
A
el
i
M
C
h
(\"
A
el
a\"
)
th
el
d
t
e
p
p
ca
n
am
n
g
a
en
n
g
s
e
er
,
,
1S
R
d
ad
i
i
h
('
i
i
)
t
M
V
C
V
\"
d
b
h
f
t
ot
es
p
on
en
am
en
en
en
v
v
an
o
,
, | R |\n| S | th
th
ch
i
l
d
f
h
i
(
th
f
d
M
C
D
-H
M
C
h
\"
)
d
e
em
ar
e
re
n
o
r.
en
n
a
r
e
ou
n
er
u
en
an
, | | S |\n| T | th
e
ow
n
er
o | f
th
el
l-
k
F
G
N
e
n
g
w
n
ow
n
an
u
ro
u
p | T |\n| U | | | U |\n\n-4-\n\nA\n\nB\n\nc\n\nD\n\nF\n\nc\n\nH\n\n6. Rostack Investments Inc. ('Rostack'), a Liberian company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 2\"' Respondent, Sai Wo Enterprises Limited (\"Sai Wo\"). Sai Wo is a Hong Kong company, which, in turn, is wholly owned by Mr. Chen. Vivien was one of the directors of Rostack prior to 2000. Since 15 November 2000, the only directors of Rostack have been Mr. Patrick Yu C'Mr. Yu\") and Madam Gladys Au (\"Madam Au\"). Rostack is in the business of lending to United States based residents and investing in loan participations where the borrowers are United States based entitles or residents.\n\n7. In December 2009, Rostack commenced the California Action against Angela for repayment of a US\\$30 million promissory note made in J 1995 (\"the Note\"). The maturity date of the Note was 5 July 2010. Angela K was required to make annual interest payments on 5 July each year. A failure to make an annual interest payment was a default entitling Rostack to recover the entire unpaid principal balance and all accrued unpaid M interest immediately due.\n\nN\n\n> 8. According to the Complaint filed in the California Court dated 1 8 December 2009, Rostack alleges that Angela had defaulted in making interest payments since July 2006. On 25 May 2009, Rostack declared that the entire outstanding principal of US\\$28,273,000 and accrued interest of US\\$8,063,614.52 immediately due and payable.\n\n> > Amended\n\ndischarge.\n\npleaded by Answer to the\n\nAngela in the\n\nComplaint\n\nCalifornia\n\nAction are: (i)\n\ndated 10\n\n- R\n- S\n\n9.\n\nJune\n\nestoppel; (ii)\n\n2010, the\n\nT\n\nU\n\nV\n\nU\n\nA\n\nB\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nNI\n\nN\n\n0\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nAccording\n\nlaches; and (ii)\n\ndefences\n\n to the\n\n-\n-\n\n- A\n\nB\n\nD\n\nF\n\nH\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\nP\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nB\n\n> c\n\n> > D\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\n> H\n\nI\n\nJ\n\n> K\n\nL\n\nM\n\nA\n\n> 10. The defence of estoppel is alleged to operate in the following manner. The Note formed part of a series of inter-family arrangements and understandings which were partly written and partly oral between . Angela and Mr. Chen, whereby it had been agreed that Mr. Chen would, through gifts to Angela, fund the interest payments and discharge the loan in full, it is alleged that Mr. Chen had sought the help of Angela to acquire rubber plantations and large parcels of farmland for the Chen Family. Angela had used the loan represented by the Note to purchase a ranch in Utah known as \"Two Bear Ranch\" on behalf of the Chen Family. As part of the arrangement, Mr. Chen agreed, partly in writing and partly orally, to fund the interest payments on the Note through annual gifts made by him to Angela, and to waive the balance of the Note as a gift or to gift an amount of cash equal to the balance to enable her to discharge the balance of the Note. Hostilities had then ensured between Angela and Vivien, and Vivien had exerted improper influence and control over Mr. Chen and interfered with the said arrangements and understandings. Rostack was controlled and directed by Vivien, and through such dominance and control, Vivien interfered with Mr. Chen's gifts to Angela and disabled her from paying the interest and principal on the Note. In the circumstances, Rostack is estopped from enforcing the Note.\n\np\n\n0\n\nR\n\nS\n\n11. As to the defence of laches, Angela claims that Rostack and Vivien had deliberately delayed the enforcement of the Note in the knowledge that due to Mr. Chen's declining health, he would no longer be able to control Rostack or to give testimony as to the said arrangements and understandings. Hence, Rostack is barred from enforcing the Note.\n\nT\n\nU\n\n> V\n\nV\n\nA -6- A B 12. As to the defence of discharge, Angela claims that the Note B c should have been discharged since Mr. Chen intended to gift her the outstanding balance of the loan. D D E 13. The trial has been set down to commence on 17 January 2012. E F F 14. On 13 December 2010, Angela issued a Notice of Motion G requesting the California Court to issue a letter of request for international G judicial assistance to compel Vivien and representatives of Sai Wo to H H attend an examination and make discovery. Rostack's lawyers in the United States opposed the Notice of Motion primarily on the ground that the evidence sought in the intended Letter of Request was unnecessary and J J irrelevant to the California Action. In reply, Angela's lawyers in the K United States contended that, inter alia, Vivien was a relevant and material K witness because: L L M (i) Vivien and other family members have knowledge of the M complex arrangements involving the Two Bears property in N N Utah; 0 0 (ii) it is Angela's allegation that individual officers at Rostack and P P its directors were just low-level functionary employees who served at the pleasure of Vivien and took all their instructions Q R and orders from Vivien or people designated by Vivien to R give such orders; S S T (iii) it is also Angela's allegation that Rostack was the alter-ego of T Vivien or Mr. Chen, and so the agreement to discharge the U U\n\nV\n\n| A | - | A | |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--|\n| B | N
b
l
ai
d
ot
th
f
f
R
k
at
d
f
e
ca
t
d
ai
n
e
st
e
ee
o
st
o
ac
an
en
or
ce
n | B | |\n| c | ag
k
R
d
st
o
ac
;
an | | |\n| D | (
i
v)
th
ri
f
i
i
V
i
d
t
ti
tl
ed
e
l
m
an
u
sc
p
t
P
o
en
N
v
n
o
a
cu
m
en
en | D | |\n| E | ro
p
o
sa
o
A
6
02
9
d
7
ed
7
F
eb
at
2
0
0
(\"
th
5
P
l\"
)
sh
th
ru
ar
y
at
e
ro
p
o
sa
ow
s | E | |\n| F | i
i
V
k
ab
th
i
f
ad
t
b
M
h
en
t
C
v
n
ew
A
el
ou
e
g
to
m
e
y
r.
en
n
g
a
\"
al
se
v
er
y
ea
rs
ag
o | F | |\n| G | | G | |\n| H | h
15
T
h
ri
f
th
i
N
f
M
i
e
ot
ok
l
ea
n
g
ot
1
o
to
5
e
ce
o
on
p
ac
e
on
F
eb
2
0
1
1
N
i
th
d
i
tw
k
st
R
'
ru
ar
si
ti
th
y
st
C
al
i
f
o
an
i
n
g
o
ac
s
op
p
o
on
e
or
n
a | H | |\n| I | ,
C
d
th
rt
M
i
te
ot
ou
g
ra
n
e
on | | |\n| J | 1
6
d
Ju
i
th
L
f
C
al
i
f
i
C
th
i
ed
th
g
e
rt
av
n
L
f
o
e
or
n
a
et
te
ou
en
ss
u
e
r
o | J | |\n| K | R
d
ed
9
t
M
ch
2
0
1
1
b
at
A
ri
ef
eq
es
f
th
u
f
th
ar
cl
ai
at
su
m
m
ar
y
o
e
n
u
re
o
e
m | K | |\n| | i
th
al
i
f
C
i
A
i
d
th
d
f
ct
d
ef
f
n
e
d
or
n
a
b
on
t
A
el
an
e
gr
ou
n
s
o
en
ce
p
u
or
w
ar
n
g
y
a | | |\n| L | i
i
ed
i
f
ta
7
(
)
th
L
f
R
s
co
et
te
In
1
0
th
n
n
t.
§
C
al
i
f
i
n
o
C
a
e
r
o
eq
rt
u
es
e
or
n
a
ou
, | L | |\n| M | d
V
i
i
te
i
d
i
d
to
re
q
l
i
u
es
at
th
al
i
v
en
te
at
C
f
i
p
ro
v
e
ev
en
ce
on
to
m
rs
re
n
g
e
or
n
a | | |\n| N | A
i
i
cl
d
i
th
ct
f
l
l
i
on
n
u
n
g
e
o
ow
n
g
: | | |\n| 0 | th
fo
io
th
(i)
ti
al
le
d
\\$3
at
io
d/
0
at
ri
in
e
rm
te
n,
ne
go
to
n,
an
or
en
e
ge
ng
ill
io
is
th
fo
th
ba
si
f
at
P
la
in
ti
ff
cl
ai
m
n
pr
om
so
ry
te
rm
e
no
s
s
o
s
m
s | 0 | |\n| | in
F
ei
th
A
io
(t
h
e)
N
ct
ot
e
or
gn
n
e
; | | |\n| Q | (ii
,)
th
al
le
d
de
/i
lt
of
th
N
fa
d
e
ge
ot
ci
u
ct
e
st
e;
an
y
s
an
rc
um
an
ce
s,
in
cl
ud
in
ic
io
la
ti
at
g
co
m
m
un
ns
re
to
t
ng
an
ag
re
y
em
en
or
,
de
nd
in
be
ta
tw
th
D
ef
i'
nd
iv
ie
Cl
i
un
rs
V
ee
n
or
am
on | Q | |\n| R | g
t,
g
e
an
n
en
d/
th
ei
ft
ith
th
th
an
N
ld
be
ai
di
ha
ed
or
r
at
ot
d
er
e
e
w
ou
re
p
or
sc
rg
th
ei
r/
it
Ii
b
th
h
gi
ft
D
ef
da
he
is
to
er
nt
ot
y
ro
ug
r
en
or
rw
e, | R | |\n| S | i
V
iv
ie
C/
in | 5 | |\n| T | (ii
,)
's
in
l
te
of
t/
ic
la
in
st
nt
P
ti
ff
n
ze
n
re
or
co
ro | T | |\n| u | (iv
)
al
l
al
le
ti
of
th
C
pl
ai
d
al
l
nt
in
in
ga
on
at
te
s
e
ta
om
to
an
m
rs
ap
p
er
g
D
ef
da
's
af
fi
d
iv
de
nt
fe
th
at
en
et
an
sw
er
an
rm
e
nc
es
er
o. | | |\n| V | | u
V | |\n\n| A | | -8
- | A |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| B | 1
7. | O
4
A
2
0
1
1
A
el
st
i
ed
th
n
u
gu
te
O
ri
i
i
n
g
a
ss
u
ex
p
ar
at
e
g
n
n
g
, | B |\n| c | S
u
m
m
on
s | h
ei
h
i
ch
1s
d
t
b
h
er
n
te
f
f
i
A
i
w
as
w
su
p
p
or
at
T
h
y
er
rm
on
e | |\n| D | b
ti
st
f
th
te
ts
A
f
f
i
i
su
an
v
e
ti
al
l
co
n
at
th
n
o
e
i
d
i
rm
on
at
te
ar
e
es
se
n
y
e
m
rs
ra
se
n
A
l
l
d
ed
d
ef
d
th
i
n
g
e
a
s
N
f
i
p
ea
M
i
en
ot
th
C
al
i
f
ce
an
ot
i
e
ce
o
on
n
e
or
n
a | | |\n| E | A
i
ct
on | | |\n| F | h
T
l
h
l
th
ta
ed
i
d
th
al
l
e
m
ed
en
i
al
ea
-d
i
p
ro
ce
n
g
at
l
s
an
e
e
g
m
er
n
o
n
sc
o
su
re | | |\n| O | | | G |\n| H | 1
8
C
al
i
f
i
or
n
a | h
T
f
h
i
ch
h
tw
ts
ad
er
e
b
d
i
er
e
l
d
w
o
ot
th
ac
w
n
to
ee
n
sc
o
se
e
C
in
th
N
i
rt
f
i
ot
M
h
ri
d
ou
ot
e
M
H
i
i
ce
th
o
on
to
te
ea
n
g
an
as
r
u
n
e | |\n| | te
ex
p
ar
ap | l
i
ti
(\"
th
T
F
'
)
ts
p
ca
on
e
w
o
ac
: | |\n| J | (
i
) | M
C
h
h
b
d
l
ed
l
l
i
r.
i
d
en
ta
b
as
ee
ta
th
n
ec
ar
te
m
en
n
ca
y
p
ac
y
e | J |\n| K | | H
K
si
2
1
b
rt
N
on
g
2
0
0
8
d
th
on
g
si
co
u
n
ce
at
ov
em
er
an
n
ce
, | K |\n| L | | th
M
M
M
L
f
M
C
P
A
('
en
r.
M
M
\"
)
an
o
eu
n
g
o
az
ar
s
r.
an
w
as
,
i
d
th
te
C
i
f
th
tt
f
ap
p
o
E
M
h
n
as
C
d
e
om
st
at
h
m
ee
o
e
e
o
r.
en
an
as | L |\n| M | | si
b
i
d
ad
i
i
i
th
n
ce
ee
n
st
d
m
an
ag
n
g
an
t
m
n
er
n
g
e
p
ro
p
er
y
an | M |\n| N | | af
f
ai
f
M
C
h
d
rs
o
r.
en
;
an | N |\n| 0 | (
i
i
) | A
el
h
ad
ob
i
ed
ed
ta
i
l
n
g
tw
th
a
n
ts
l
o
m
ta
ca
re
p
or
on
e
m
en | 0 |\n| | | d
i
ti
f
M
C
h
i
A
ri
l
d
M
2
0
0
(
co
n
on
7
th
ed
i
o
M
l
r.
en
n
p
an
ay
e
ca
)
R
s'
h
i
ch
sh
ed
rt
th
M
C
h
ep
o
at
b
th
ti
w
ow
at
r.
en
at
w
as
y
m
e
an
, | |\n| Q | | ad
d
f
D
ti
d
st
i
ab
l
f
an
i
v
ce
ag
e
o
em
en
a
an
w
as
n
ca
p
e
o
m
an
ag
n
g | Q |\n| R | | d
ad
i
i
i
h
i
d
st
af
f
ai
an
t
m
n
er
n
g
s
p
ro
p
er
an
y
rs | R |\n| S | 1
9 | B
f
th
T
F
i
th
V
i
i
'
ts
ec
au
se
t
th
th
o
es
e
w
o
ac
at
e
v
en
s
ca
se
e
, | S |\n| T | f
l
l
i
al
o
ow
n
g | l
i
f
A
el
at
b
ot
eg
on
tr
s
o
n
g
a
ca
n
n
e
u
e: | T |\n| U | | | U |\n| | | | |\n\n| A | | -
- | A |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| B | (
i
) | i
i
gh
V
f
k
f
R
th
t
to
N
st
to
ot
v
en
so
u
en
or
ce
or
ca
u
se
o
ac
en
or
ce
e
e | B |\n| c | | i
2
0
0
9
n
; | |\n| D | (
i
i
) | i
i
h
ad
d
el
ed
V
k
i
ti
f
th
N
ti
l
M
ta
to
ot
v
en
ay
n
g
ac
on
en
or
ce
e
e
u
n
r. | D |\n| E | | C
h
's
h
l
th
h
ad
d
i
ed
ch
d
th
h
l
d
et
at
to
at
en
ea
er
or
su
a
eg
re
e
e
w
ou | E |\n| F | | b
ab
l
gi
i
d
th
i
f
th
ot
to
to
t
st
n
e
e
v
e
ev
en
ce
su
p
p
or
e
ex
en
ce
o
e
f
i
l
ts
am
y
ar
ra
n
g
em
en
; | F |\n| G | | | G |\n| H | (
i
i
i
) | k
d
h
tl
R
M
C
d
th
f
l
st
o
ac
an
r.
en
ar
e
cu
rr
en
y
n
er
e
ro
n
g
u
w
u
i
f
l
d
l
f
V
i
i
d
sh
i
d
i
i
th
tr
ct
n
en
ce
an
u
co
n
o
o
v
en
an
e
s
n
ow
re
n
g
e | II |\n| | | al
i
f
i
i
ai
C
A
A
el
d
ct
st
or
n
a
on
ag
n
n
g
a;
an | |\n| J | (
i
v) | th
d
i
f
k
d
ad
R
M
Y
M
A
t
ct
st
e
cu
rr
en
re
or
s
o
o
ac
r.
u
an
am
u
ar
e | J |\n| K | | ,
,
el
i
d
-l
el
l
h
th
l
f
d
at
m
er
y
m
ev
s
em
p
oy
ee
s
w
o
se
rv
e
e
p
ea
su
re
o
an | K |\n| L | | k
i
i
d
d
f
i
i
V
ta
st
ct
e
n
ru
on
s
an
or
er
s
ro
m
v
en | L |\n| M | 2
0 | h
al
i
i
T
th
i
th
ef
h
tr
t
at
to
e
ce
e
n
ss
u
n
e
p
re
se
n
s,
er
or
e,
w
ca
se | M |\n| N | th
T
F
d
th
-d
i
l
f
th
af
f
th
T
F
te
t
ts
ts
t
ex
n
e
w
o
ac
an
e
n
on
sc
o
su
re
o
e
w
o
ac
ec
e
ti
h
h
th
sh
l
d
f
f
j
d
i
ci
al
H
K
et
to
rt
qu
es
on
as
w
er
e
on
g
on
g
co
ou
o
er
u
u | | N |\n| 0 | si
st
as
an
ce | th
C
al
i
f
i
d
th
f
C
L
R
t.
to
rt
et
te
e
or
n
a
ou
u
n
er
e
r
o
eq
u
es | 0 |\n| P | G
al
ri
en
er
p | ci
l
l
i
i
th
f
i
f
i
d
fo
t
n
p
es
r
co
m
p
an
ce
w
o
re
g
n
re
q
u
es
o
r
ev
en
ce | P |\n| Q | | | Q |\n| R | 2
1.
ad
d
b
te
op
y | th
i
ti
d
th
l
al
ri
ci
l
T
I
to
t
t
o
an
sw
er
s
qu
es
on
n
ee
se
ou
e
eg
p
n
p
es
,
k
i
d
f
l
i
ti
th
H
i
d
l
i
i
th
ch
K
rt
e
on
g
on
g
co
u
n
ea
n
g
w
su
n
o
ap
p
ca
on | R |\n| 5 | | | S |\n| T | 22
H
K
o
n
g
on | th
ti
d
A
f
si
th
th
i
ti
f
d
b
te
to
m
e
e
p
ar
es
an
r
p
er
u
n
g
e
au
or
es
re
er
re
y
i
i
l
d
l
d
i
h
I
C
P
2
0
12
I
at
tr
to
ro
ce
re
ou
su
m
m
ar
se
w
g
v
u
w
y | T |\n| U | i
to
p
er
ce
e
v | ,
th
l
l
al
ri
ci
l
t
e
re
ev
an
eg
p
n
p
es
: | U |\n| V | | | V |\n\n| iIb
W | | | |\n|----------|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| A | | 1
0
-
- | A |\n| B | (i
) | 75
f
th
E
id
O
rd
in
(c
)
8
(\"
th
rd
s.
O
in
\"
)
o
e
v
en
ce
an
ce
ap
e
an
ce | B |\n| | | id
th
h
li
ti
at
is
ad
th
p
ro
es
C
f
v
to
w
er
e
an
ap
rt
p
ca
on
m
e
e
ou
o
ir
F
In
fo
d
st
st
fo | |\n| D | | id
b
ob
in
ed
d
th
an
ce
an
to
ta
r
or
er
r
ev
en
ce
e
an
e
is
ti
sf
ie
d
th
th
rt
li
ti
is
at
ad
in
f
co
u
sa
e
ap
p
ca
on
m
e
p
rs
u
u
an
ce
o
a | D |\n| | | is
ed
b
t
in
it
re
qu
rt
id
es
su
tr
te
ts
y
a
co
u
a
co
u
n
y
or
rr
or
y
ou
e | E |\n| F | | H
K
d
th
th
id
at
h
ic
h
th
li
ti
on
g
on
g
to
an
e
ev
en
ce
w
e
ap
p
ca
on
la
is
b
ob
in
ed
fo
te
to
th
ta
f
ci
il
ed
re
s
in
e
r
e
p
u
rp
o
se
s
o
v
p
ro
ce
g
s | F |\n| G | | h
ic
h
ei
th
h
b
in
it
d
b
ef
th
ti
w
st
te
er
av
e
ee
n
u
rt
or
e
e
re
qu
es
n
g
co
u | |\n| H | | h
in
it
ti
b
ef
th
st
is
la
d
or
at
th
w
o
se
rt
te
u
on
or
te
e
co
u
co
n
m
p
e
,
C
f
ir
F
rt
In
sh
al
l
h
st
th
st
fe
ed
it
ou
o
an
ce
av
e
e
p
ow
er
s
co
n
rr
on | I-f |\n| I | | b
P
V
th
II
I
f
rd
in
t
O
ar
y
e
o
an
ce
; | |\n| .1 | (i
i
) | th
f
in
H
iv
rt
K
ef
fe
e
p
ow
er
o
to
a
co
u
ct
to
on
g
on
g
g
e
an | J |\n| K | | li
ti
fo
in
io
al
j
d
ic
ia
l
te
si
at
is
in
ed
i
ap
st
p
ca
on
r
rn
n
ta
u
as
an
ce
co
n
n | K |\n| L | | th
76
f
O
rd
in
s.
o
e
an
ce
; | L |\n| M | (i
ii
) | th
O
rd
in
th
ci
d
ts
t
h
ic
h
th
e
st
an
ce
se
ou
e
rc
u
m
an
ce
s
u
n
er
w
e | M |\n| N | | in
H
K
ld
rt
d
si
fo
i
co
u
st
to
on
g
on
g
w
ou
re
n
rt
er
as
an
ce
a
re
gn
co
u
b
d
in
th
k
in
f
ta
id
in
H
K
d
th
y
or
er
g
e
g
o
ev
en
ce
on
g
on
g
an
e
, | N |\n| 0 | | d
in
f
li
ti
ad
fo
t
si
is
p
ro
ce
u
re
st
re
sp
ec
o
ap
p
ca
on
m
s
e
r
as
an
ce | 0 |\n| P | | in
ed
in
0
f
th
ta
70
R
H
C
co
n
o
e
; | P |\n| Q | (i
v) | th
H
K
il
l
d
in
il
iv
rt
ef
fe
ch
e
on
ct
g
on
g
co
to
u
w
or
ar
y
g
e
su | Q |\n| R | | fa
is
d
t
ic
ab
le
d
th
ct
re
qu
es
to
te
t
so
r
as
p
ro
p
er
an
p
ra
an
e
ex
n
th
is
is
si
b
le
d
at
H
la
K
Su
ch
ri
ci
le
p
er
m
u
n
er
on
g
on
g
w
p
n
p | R |\n| S | | fl
j
d
ic
ia
d
l
in
io
ts
al
it
d
it
te
fo
it
h
at
re
ec
u
an
rn
n
co
m
y
an
co
n
rm
s
w | S |\n| T | | th
ir
it
f
th
H
C
ti
d
P
V
II
I
f
th
sp
t
e
o
e
ag
u
e
on
v
en
on
an
ar
o
e | T |\n| U | | O
rd
in
it
fo
ed
it
h
th
ir
it
f
th
fo
an
ce
as
co
n
rm
w
e
sp
o
e
rm
er
(s
H
i
i
K
C
l
P
d
st
at
te
2
0
12
§7
0/
6/
2
)
u
s
ee
:
on
g
on
g
ro
at
v
ce
u
re
;
, | U |\n| | | | |\n\n| | | 11 | |\n|----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| A | | -
- | A |\n| B | (
v) | in
d
l
i
i
th
f
i
d
f
f
ei
t
ea
n
g
w
rt
a
re
qu
es
or
ev
en
ce
ro
m
a
or
gn
co
u
, | B |\n| c | | th
H
K
h
f
i
d
i
d
h
h
i
h
rt
t
e
to
et
t
on
g
on
g
co
u
as
rs
ec
e
w
er
as | |\n| D | | j
ri
sd
i
i
ak
d
gi
ct
ef
f
th
to
d
to
t
to
u
t
o
n
m
e
an
or
er
v
e
ec
e
re
qu
es
an
,
d
l
h
h
h
f
d
i
ti
if
it
et
gh
at
te
se
co
n
it
to
y
as
t
w
er
as
a
m
r
o
sc
re
on
ou
,
, | D |\n| E | | ak
f
ak
ch
d
(
to
H
K
C
iv
il
m
e
or
re
u
se
m
e
su
an
or
er
se
e:
o
n
g
on
g | E |\n| F | | d
P
2
0
12
§
7
0
/
6
/
2
)
at
ro
ce
u
re
;
, | F |\n| c | (
i
)
v | f
d
i
ti
ai
i
th
d
i
th
at
te
H
as
a
m
r
o
sc
re
on
ag
n
n
e
or
n
ar
ay
y
w
e
on
g
,
, | G |\n| H | | K
sh
l
d
i
ci
d
i
ti
ak
th
d
rt
ts
to
on
g
co
u
ou
ex
er
se
sc
re
on
m
e
e
or
er
k
ed
f
l
i
i
ti
sf
i
ed
th
th
l
i
t
ti
l
d
b
at
as
or
u
n
es
s
s
sa
e
ap
p
ca
on
w
ou
e | H |\n| | | d
ed
f
al
l
i
i
th
i
th
d
i
ti
f
f
ri
l
re
g
ar
as
n
g
w
n
e
es
cr
p
o
on
v
o
ou
s, | |\n| J | | i
ab
f
th
f
th
at
(
H
rt
v
ex
ou
s
or
an
u
se
o
e
p
ro
ce
ss
o
e
co
u
se
e:
on
g
K
C
iv
il
d
P
2
0
12
§
7
0
/
6
/
2
)
at
on
g
ro
ce
u
re
;
, | J |\n| K | | | K |\n| L | (
i
i
)
v | th
H
h
K
j
th
f
rt
ei
to
t
t
e
on
g
on
g
co
u
as
p
ow
er
ac
ce
p
or
re
ec
e
or
gn
i
h
l
i
h
h
al
d
t
t
et
to
re
qu
es
n
w
o
e
ta
or
n
p
ar
w
er
as
or
or
o
cu
m
en
ry | L |\n| M | | ,
i
d
d
i
d
sh
l
d
d
el
f
th
f
ei
t
et
ev
en
ce
an
ca
n
an
ou
e
ro
m
e
or
gn
, | NI |\n| N | | th
i
ei
th
d
t
i
ts
at
tn
re
qu
es
an
y
p
ar
ar
e
ex
ce
ss
v
e
er
as
re
g
ar
s
w
es
se
s
d
d
h
i
ch
i
l
k
ts
or
as
re
g
ar
s
o
cu
m
en
w
s
co
m
m
on
n
ow
y
n
as
, | N |\n| 0 | | l
i
b
l
\"
ci
l\"
(
H
K
C
iv
il
P
d
ap
p
y
n
g
a
u
e-
p
en
se
e:
on
g
on
g
ro
ce
u
re | 0 |\n| P | | 2
0
12
§
7
0
/
6
/
)
d
2
at
;
an
, | P |\n| Q | (
i
i
i
)
v | i
i
ti
al
l
f
th
t
ti
h
h
th
at
te
s
rt
et
es
se
n
m
y
a
r
or
e
re
qu
es
n
g
co
u
w
er
e | Q |\n| R | | i
d
d
i
l
l
b
l
d
ad
i
i
b
l
In
th
te
t
ev
en
ce
re
qu
es
w
e
re
ev
an
an
m
ss
e
e | R |\n| | | f
f
i
th
l
f
th
ai
st
at
t
et
te
t
at
rt
ac
e
o
n
e
a
em
en
r
o
re
qu
es
a
ce
n
p
er
so
n | |\n| S | | i
i
th
sh
H
K
l
d
b
tn
rt
ot
s
a
n
ec
es
sa
ry
w
es
s,
e
on
g
on
g
co
ou
u
n
e | S |\n| T | | i
th
i
i
th
ti
d
th
tu
te
to
as
ex
am
n
e
e
ss
u
es
n
e
ac
an
on
e
ci
f
th
i
th
i
ti
l
i
f
th
st
t
rc
u
m
an
ce
o
s
e
ca
se
w
ex
ce
ss
e
p
ar
cu
ar
or
e
v
y | T |\n| 1' | | f
d
i
th
f
i
ti
l
d
et
p
rp
o
u
o
se
er
m
qu
o
n
n
g
e
es
on
re
ev
an
an
ce | U |\n\nB\n\nc\n\nD\n\nE\n\nI\n\nS\n\n-12A\n\nB\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nH\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nrvi\n\nN\n\n0\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nadmissibility in advance (see: Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1978] AC 547 at 654 per Lord Keith of Kinkel F-G and Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012 at §70/6/16).\n\n23. For third party discovery of documents as opposed to oral Ftestimony, there seems to be some conflicting authorities. Mr. Sussex S.C., Gsenior counsel for Angela, refers me to the Court of Appeal decision of Predi Wave Coip v New World TMT Ltd [2007] 4 HKC 206, which seems Hto support the proposition that in assessing the relevancy of the evidence and documents sought, the Hong Kong court should give due weight to the decision made by the foreign court about the relevancy of the evidence and Jdocuments. On the other hand, Mr. Ho S.C., senior counsel for Vivien, Krelies on the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Au, as he then was, in Prirnarius Capital LLC i' Jayhawk Capital, unreported, HCMP No 1961 of L2008 (decision on 21 April 2009), and argues that the Hong Kong court Mshould revisit the issue of relevancy of the evidence and documents in considering whether to offer legal assistance to the foreign court. N\n\n24. Being a Court of Appeal decision, Predi Wave is strictly binding on this court. Furthermore, it seems that the decision of Deputy Judge Au in Priniarius Capital is only limited to support the following Qpropositions: (i) s. 76 of the Ordinance provides a strict approach of the RHong Kong court not to countenance \"fishing expedition\" recognized locally in the law of discovery as against non-party witnesses; and (ii) for discovery of documents, the applicant must comply with the requirements Tset out in s. 76(4). In any event, it is not necessary for me to resolve the apparent difference in the approaches as I will elaborate in the decision\n\nU\n\n> V\n\nV\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-15 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 13 of 20\n\nA - 13- B below, I share the view of Judge Lavin that the evidence of Vivien is relevant in determining the various issues in the California Action. D The relevance ofthe Two Facts E 25. Should the court then set aside the Order because of the F revelation of the Two Facts? G 26. In my judgment, the Two Facts have nothing to do with the H merits of the application. According to § 10 of the Letter of Request, Vivien is requested to testify on the four matters mentioned therein, including, inter alia: the formation, negotiation and entering into the Note; J the alleged default of the Note; any facts and circumstances, including K communications, relating to any agreement or understanding between or among Angela, Vivien and their father that the Note would be repaid or L discharged by their father through gifts to Angela. In other words, Vivien M is asked to provide evidence on a wide range of matters from the time when the Note was made in 1995 up to the present moment. The Two N Facts may have some bearing on the validity of Angela's allegations in 0 respect of some matters in the recent years. However, what happened in the early years when the Note was made in 1995 are also crucial matters P which have to be investigated by the court in the California Action. Being in the same family, Vivien should be asked to provide evidence about her R knowledge, if any, of the alleged gift and family arrangement, and that was one of the very reasons why the California Court issued the Letter of S Request. Although Vivien denies any personal knowledge of these matters, T it is a question to be determined by the California Court.\n\nU\n\nU\n\nV\n\nA\n\nB\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nH\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\nP\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\n1\n\nA -14- A B 27. Further, Angela is relying on the Proposal which contains the B c following manuscript of Vivien: D It is totally up to [Mr. ChenJ to gift [AngelaJ additional 30 million US dollars, [VivienJ will not oppose it. Especially [4ngelaJ said 1tMr. ChenJ E agreed to give to her several years ago.\" E F 28. According to Angela, such manuscript shows that Vivien F knew about the gift arrangement. Vivien disputes that and offers some C C explanations as to why she wrote those words in the Proposal. Again, such H matter should be properly investigated by the California Court and H Vivien's evidence would be crucial for the court to make the correct decision in this regard. J J 29. On the face of it, the Two Facts may weaken some of the K K allegations of Angela made in the California Action, for example, whether L Vivien had exerted control over Rostack in commencing the California L NI Action in 2009 or whether Vivien had caused any delay in the enforcement M of the Note. Despite that, Angela is able to produce a letter from Mr. N Man's solicitors dated 17 October 2011, which indicates that Mr. Man has N o not exercised any day-to-day management control of Rostack or its affairs including the prosecution and conduct of the California Action. Angela p claims that as the directors of Rostack, Mr. Yu and Madam Au, are just P Q mid-level employees in the Nan Fung Group, it is still possible for Vivien Q to have exerted control over Rostack in respect of the conduct of the R R California Action. Again it would be a matter for investigation by the s California Court.\n\n30. If the court were to decline to offer judicial assistance, there may be serious miscarriage of justice as the California Court would be\n\nV\n\nu\n\nT\n\n> V\n\nT\n\nu\n\nI\n\n-15-\n\nA\n\nB\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nc\n\nH\n\nI\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nNi\n\nN\n\n0\n\nB deprived of the opportunity of considering the evidence of a potentially cvery important witness, Vivien, who had close connection with Mr. Chen and Angela within the family at least in the early years. Without such D opportunity, the California Court would only have a limited view of the E evidence, making it more difficult to arrive at the correct decision about the merits of the claim. Such possible miscarriage of justice is a real F concern of the Hong Kong court. Further, as Mr. Chen is now incapable of G testifying in the California Court by reason of his health condition, I would imagine that the evidence of Vivien would become more important in the Fl California Action.\n\n3 1. On the other hand, there is no real prejudice to Vivien. The Jorder is, in substance, only a subpoena issued by a foreign court. When Ktestifying before the Examiner, Vivien has every opportunity to put forward her case and evidence before the California Court for Lconsideration, and I would not regard it as an invasion of her right or Mprivacy by ordering her to testify before the Examiner. Neither can Angela's application be regarded as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the Nprocess of the court. There is also no suggestion that the evidence or 0documents required of Vivien to disclose under the Letter of Request are excessive such that the court should apply a \"blue-pencil\". Hence, even with the revelation of the Two Facts, the Hong Kong court should still offer legal assistance to the California Court to give effect to the Letter of RRequest.\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nU\n\nQ\n\nS\n\n> T\n\nU\n\n## Material non-disclosure?\n\n32. The next question I have to consider is whether the Hong Kong court should decline to offer assistance because Angela had failed to\n\nV\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-15 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 16 of 20\n\niL A -16- A B disclose the Two Facts in the Notice of Motion hearing before Judge Lavin B c and in the 0. 70 application before Master Hui. D D 'i,) The Notice ofMotion hearing in the C'ahforma Court E E 33. Though Vivien was not a party, the Notice of Motion hearing F F before Judge Lavin was, nonetheless, an inter parte hearing. In such case, G I doubt whether the duty of full and frank disclosure applied. G H H 34. In respect of the Mental Heath proceedings of Mr. Chen in 2008, the Hong Kong court had made a confidentiality order prohibiting the publication of the proceedings. The confidentiality order was J J subsequently relaxed but the order was still binding on the parties at the K time of the hearing before Judge Lavin. Despite that, both Angela and K Rostack were aware of the Two Facts at that time, and yet neither of the L L parties considered the Two Facts to be relevant to seek the leave from the M Hong Kong court to disclose or rely upon the same in the California Court. M N N 35. This was not surprising as the Two Facts were not relevant to ° the consideration of the application before the California Court. According 0 to Vivien, the Two Facts were relevant because it would destroy some of P P the allegations of Angela in the California Action, including Vivien was Q still controlling Rostack and she had delayed the enforcement of the Note. Q R However, all of these assertions, which are clearly disputed by Angela, R would go to the merits and creditability of Angela's defence in the S California Action. These are clearly issues for the trial in the California S Court. T T\n\nV\n\nU\n\n> V\n\nB\n\nc\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nN -17-\n\n36. Further, as Vivien is expected to provide evidence on a wide range of matters from 1995 up to the present moment, it would not be necessary for Angela to disclose facts or evidence which may affect the credibility of some of Angela s allegations relating to events only in the recent years. Hence, in my judgment, the Two Facts were quite irrelevant as to whether Vivien should be asked to testify on the specified matters before the Examiner in Hong Kong.\n\n37. I also do not accept that Angela had been acting malafides or H trying to exert improper pressure on Vivien by not disclosing the Two Facts in the California Action. The Two Facts were clearly known to the parties of the California Action by that time. Furthermore, Vivien would Jhave every opportunity of putting forward her case and evidence when K testifying before the Examiner, and the trial judge would certainly be aware of the Two Facts when he or she is considering the merits of the L claim. Hence, there was no point for Angela to withhold the Two Facts M with a view to obtain an unfair advantage in the California Action.\n\n38. In his supplemental submissions, Mr. Ho S.C. submits that as 0 it is uncertain as to how the California Court would react to the non- disclosure of the Two Facts in the Notice of Motion hearing, the proper p procedure to follow is to discharge the ex parte order and to direct Angela Q to reapply to the California Court again by making full disclosure of the R materials. Such approach, says Mr. Ho S.C., is consistent with what is suggested in §70/6/2 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012, where it is S stated that: '[if] there is any doubt about the matter, the Hong Kong Court T may allow the parties to refer back to the foreign court or judge who issued the request for evidence (see: American Express Warehousing Ltd v Doe U [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 222).\"\n\nV\n\nV\n\nA\n\nB\n\nE\n\nF\n\na\n\nH\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\np\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\n-18-\n\nA\n\nB\n\nc\n\n> D\n\nE\n\nF\n\nc\n\nH\n\nI\n\nJ\n\n39. With respect, I see no merit in such suggestion. The terms of the Letter of Request are clear. The California Court requests Vivien to testify on a wide range of matters covering a considerable period of time. As mentioned above, the non-disclosure of the Two Facts should have no practical effect on the decision as to whether Vivien should be ordered to testify before an Examiner, and I consider it a waste of time and costs to request Angela to make a fresh application to the California Court. If Vivien feels aggrieved with the Order, which is, in effect, no more than a subpoena that is issued by a foreign court, the proper procedure is for her to make an application as she thinks fit to the California Court to set aside the Letter of Request. As the Letter of Request is still a valid one, the Hong Kong court should give effect to such request.\n\n> Hid\n\nK\n\n> L\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\n> p\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\n## ('ii,) The ex parte application before Master\n\n40. The application before Master Hui was an exparte one, and so the duty of full and frank disclosure applied. However, even if there was initial non-disclosure, it remains a matter of discretion whether to set aside the order or not. Provided any non-disclosure was not deliberate and the matter undisclosed was not seriously prejudicial, the usual approach should be to exercise the discretion in favour of the requesting court (see: Re Troielli [1995] 2 HKC 785, per Barnett J at 7961-797A, Re New World TMT Ltd & Others [2006] HKEC 1598 at §82 and Hong Kong Civil Procedure2012at§70/6/16).\n\n41. According to the Letter of Request, Vivien is expected to give evidence on a wide range of matters and her evidence is crucial for the California Court to understand what happened when the Note was made in 1995 and the subsequent developments. As the Two Facts would, at most,\n\nV\n\nU\n\n> V\n\nA\n\nB\n\nD\n\nE\n\nF\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\np\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nH -19-\n\nA\n\nB\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nH\n\nJ\n\nK\n\nL\n\nM\n\nN\n\n0\n\nQ\n\nR\n\nS\n\nT\n\nB affect the creditability of Angela's allegations relating to some events in c the recent years, they were quite irrelevant for purpose of the application before Master Hui. As mentioned above, in the face of a statement in the D letter of request that a certain person is a necessary witness, the Hong Kong court should not be astute to examine the issues in the action and the circumstances of the case with excessive particularity for the purpose of F detennining the question of relevance and admissibility in advance. Hence, G 1 do not find that Angela had failed in the duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex pane application.\n\n42. Even if I am wrong on such particular issue, there are strong reasons for the court not to aside the Order. I take note of the judgment of J A. Cheung J, as he then was, in the case of Kan Hung Cheung v The K Director of Immigration, unreported, HCAL 74/2007 (decision on 13 February 2008) referred to me by Mr. Ho S.C., where the learned judge L stated that the jurisdiction to set aside ex pane order for material non M disclosure is a disciplinary, indeed penal, jurisdiction, quite irrespective of the merits of the application. Nevertheless, assuming that Angela had N failed in her duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex pane application 0 (which I do not accept it to be the case), the discharge of the Order would virtually mean that the California Court would be deprived of the opportunity of considering the evidence of a potentially very important Q witness, Vivien, and there may be serious miscarriage of justice as the California Court would only have a limited view of the evidence. As R Angela was not trying to exert improper pressure on Vivien to testify S before the Examiner and the non-disclosure of the Two Facts was not T seriously prejudicial, the Hong Kong court should give effect to the Letter of Request.\n\nU\n\n> V\n\nU V\n\n| 1u | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|--|--|--|\n| A | -2
0
- | A | | | | |\n| B | 4
3
B
ed
th
af
ai
d
I
ci
th
d
i
ti
as
f
f
on
e
or
es
to
ex
er
se
e
sc
re
on
o
er
, | B | | | | |\n| c | j
d
i
ci
al
si
th
st
C
al
i
f
i
C
to
th
u
as
f
an
ce
rt
L
e
t
to
R
or
n
a
et
te
ou
p
t
u
rs
u
an
e
o
r
eq
u
es | | | | | |\n| D | d
d
i
i
i
i
V
'
l
i
ti
i
d
th
an
O
rd
sm
ss
to
t
I
al
ak
v
en
s
ap
p
ca
on
se
as
e
e
er
so
m
e
an
d
th
V
i
i
d
at
A
el
th
f
th
or
er
to
is
i
d
ed
v
en
o
st
2
8
p
ay
n
g
a
at
n
e
co
s
o
e
su
m
m
on
s | | | | | |\n| E | S
b
2
0
11
b
te
ed
i
f
ed
i
th
to
ta
i
f
i
ep
ot
f
m
er
l
e
rt
te
x
n
tw
ag
re
w
ce
ca
or
o
co
u
n
se | E | | | | |\n| F | h
T
d
sh
al
l
b
ad
ab
l
14
d
af
th
e
te
d
th
or
er
te
f
h
d
i
is
i
e
m
e
so
at
u
n
ay
s
r
e
e
o
e
an
n
g
d
f
th
i
i
si
D
ow
n
o
s
ec
on | F | | | | |\n| G | | G | | | | |\n| H | 44
I
ef
l
l
f
al
l
th
at
to
si
th
th
h
am
gr
st
u
co
n
at
u
se
or
e
as
an
ce
ey
av
e
i
d
ed
th
i
to
rt
p
ro
v
s
co
u | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| I | | I | | | | |\n| J | | J | | | | |\n| K | | K | | | | |\n| L | | L | | | | |\n| M | (
i
d
ok
)
D
L
av
D
i
gh
H
C
d
Ju
t
rt
ep
u
y
ou
g
e | Ni | | | | |\n| N | | N | | | | |\n| | h
M
C
l
S
S
.C
d
M
D
l
i
L
ed
b
r.
M
ar
es
st
D
L
A
u
ss
ex
ct
an
r.
ou
g
as
am
n
ru
es
y
sr
s.
,
P
i
H
f
th
K
l
ai
ti
f
P
f
p
er
on
g
on
or
g
e
n
, | | | | | |\n| P | M
A
b
H
d
S
.C
M
i
V
D
i
ed
r.
ct
b
M
m
ro
se
st
ct
M
o
an
r.
or
aw
es
n
ru
es
sr
s.
y
ay
er | P | | | | |\n| Q | ,
B
JS
f
th
M
l
ef
d
D
t
ro
n
w
or
e
en
an
, | | | | | |\n| R | | R | | | | |\n| S | | S | | | | |\n| T | | T | | | | |\n| U | | U | | | | |\n| V | | V | | | | |","body_zh":"HCMP 1478/2011\n\n在香港特别行政区高等法院\n\n原讼法庭\n\n杂项法律程序第1478号\n\n_____________\n\n关于香港法例第8章《证据条例》第VIII部\n\n及\n\n关于《高等法院规则》第70号命令\n\n及\n\n关于现正于美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院中央区——Stanley Mosk Courthouse（斯坦利·莫斯克法院大楼）审理的民事诉讼，案号为BC428298\n\n_____________\n\n双方当事人\n\nANGELA CHEN（安吉拉·陈），又名 ANGELA C. SABELLA（安吉拉·C·萨贝拉）　申请人\n\n及\n\nVIVIEN CHEN（维维安·陈）　第一答辩人\n\nSAI WO ENTERPRISES LIMITED（世和企业有限公司）　第二答辩人\n\n_____________\n\n审理法官：Lok（陆）署理高等法院法官（内庭审理）\n\n聆讯日期：28 November 2011\n\n裁决颁布日期：7 December 2011\n\n_____________\n\n裁决\n\n1. 本程序涉及由美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院法官 Luis A. Lavin（路易斯·A·拉文）于9 March 2011发出的国际司法协助请求书（以下简称“请求书”）。\n\n2. 该请求书请求香港高等法院协助强制答辩人在香港一名查问人面前出席，就待决于加利福尼亚州高等法院（以下简称“加州法院”）的诉讼，即案号BC428298（以下简称“加州诉讼”），提供证据及出示文件。\n\n3. 申请人于4 August 2011发出单方面原诉传票，申请就第一及第二答辩人作出命令，以落实该请求书。于5 September 2011，Hui（许）聆案官批准该申请，并命令，其中包括：\n\n(i) 第一答辩人须在获委任的查问人 Richard Zimmern（理查德·齐默恩）（以下简称“查问人”）面前出席，宣誓接受查问，就请求书所指明的事项提供证言；(ii) 第一答辩人亦须于提供证言时携同并出示请求书附表A所列文件，以供申请人的代表查阅及复制；及 (iii) 第二答辩人最熟悉情况的高级人员、董事、股东及／或其他人士，须在查问人面前出席，并出示请求书附表B所列文件的副本，以供申请人的代表查阅及复制。\n\n4. 在本申请中，第一答辩人寻求撤销Hui聆案官的命令（以下简称“该命令”）中关于她的部分，理由是：\n\n(i) 申请人未有就与申请有关的重要事项作出充分及坦诚披露；及 (ii) 该命令属无理缠讼、苛刻，并且滥用法院程序。\n\n背景\n\n5. 申请人 Angela Chen（安吉拉·陈）（以下简称“Angela”）是第一答辩人 Vivien Chen（维维安·陈）（以下简称“Vivien”）的姐姐，两人均为 Nan Fung Group（南丰集团）的创办人及拥有者 Mr. Chen Din-Hua（陈廷骅先生）（以下简称“陈先生”）的女儿。\n\n6. Rostack Investments Inc.（Rostack投资有限公司）（以下简称“Rostack”）是一家利比里亚公司，亦为第二答辩人 Sai Wo Enterprises Limited（世和企业有限公司）（以下简称“Sai Wo”）的全资附属公司。Sai Wo是一家香港公司，且由陈先生全资拥有。Vivien在2000年前曾任Rostack的董事之一。自15 November 2000起，Rostack仅有的董事为 Mr. Patrick Yu（余先生）（以下简称“余先生”）及 Madam Gladys Au（区女士）（以下简称“区女士”）。Rostack的业务是向居于美国的人士贷款，并投资于借款人为美国实体或居民的贷款参与权益。\n\n7. 于December 2009，Rostack就偿还一张于1995作出的US$30 million本票（以下简称“本票”）向Angela提起加州诉讼。本票的到期日为5 July 2010。Angela须于每年5 July支付年度利息。未能支付年度利息即构成违约，使Rostack有权立即追讨全部未偿还本金余额及所有累计未付利息。\n\n8. 根据Rostack于18 December 2009向加州法院提交的起诉状，Rostack指称Angela自July 2006起未有支付利息。于25 May 2009，Rostack宣布全部未偿还本金US$28,273,000及累计利息US$8,063,614.52立即到期应付。\n\n9. 根据于10 June 2010提交的经修订起诉状答辩书，Angela在加州诉讼中提出的抗辩为：(i) 禁反言；(ii) 迟延抗辩；及 (iii) 清偿。\n\n10. 据称禁反言抗辩按以下方式适用。本票构成Angela与陈先生之间一系列部分书面、部分口头的家庭内部安排及谅解的一部分，据称双方已同意陈先生会通过向Angela作出赠与，为利息付款提供资金，并全额清偿该贷款。据称陈先生曾寻求Angela的协助，为陈氏家族购置橡胶种植园及大面积农地。Angela曾利用本票所代表的贷款，代表陈氏家族购置位于Utah（犹他州）、名为“Two Bear Ranch（双熊牧场）”的牧场。作为该安排的一部分，陈先生同意，部分以书面、部分以口头方式，通过其每年向Angela作出的赠与，为本票的利息付款提供资金，并将本票余额作为赠与予以豁免，或赠与相等于该余额的现金，以使她能够清偿本票余额。其后Angela与Vivien之间发生敌对关系，Vivien对陈先生施加不当影响及控制，并干预上述安排及谅解。Rostack由Vivien控制及指挥，而Vivien通过该等支配及控制，干预陈先生向Angela作出的赠与，使她无法支付本票的利息及本金。在此情况下，Rostack被禁反言，不得执行本票。\n\n11. 就迟延抗辩而言，Angela声称Rostack及Vivien明知由于陈先生健康状况恶化，他将不再能够控制Rostack或就上述安排及谅解作证，仍故意延迟执行本票。因此，Rostack不得执行本票。\n\n12. 就清偿抗辩而言，Angela声称，由于陈先生意图将贷款未偿余额赠与她，本票本应已获清偿。\n\n13. 审讯已排期于17 January 2012开始。\n\n14. 于13 December 2010，Angela发出动议通知，请求加州法院发出国际司法协助请求书，以强制Vivien及Sai Wo的代表出席查问及进行证据开示。Rostack在美国的律师主要以拟发出的请求书所寻求的证据对加州诉讼并非必要且无关为由，反对该动议通知。作为答复，Angela在美国的律师主张，其中包括，Vivien是一名相关且重要的证人，原因如下：\n\n(i) Vivien及其他家庭成员知悉涉及Utah州Two Bears物业的复杂安排；(ii) Angela指称，Rostack的个别高级人员及其董事仅是低级职能雇员，他们听命于Vivien，并接受Vivien或由Vivien指定发出该等指示的人士的所有指示及命令；(iii) Angela亦指称，Rostack是Vivien或陈先生的另一个自我，因此，清偿本票的协议可归责于Rostack，并可对Rostack强制执行；及 (iv) Vivien于一份题为Proposal No. A60297（第A60297号提案）、日期为7 February 2005的文件（以下简称“该提案”）中的手稿显示，Vivien知悉陈先生于“several years ago”向Angela作出的赠与。\n\n15. 该动议通知的聆讯于15 February 2011进行。尽管Rostack提出反对，加州法院仍批准该动议。\n\n16. 加州法院的 Lavin 法官随后发出日期为9 March 2011的请求书。请求书第§7(a)载有加州诉讼中申索性质及Angela所提出抗辩理由的简要概述。于第§10，加州法院要求Vivien就与加州诉讼有关的事项提供证据，包括下列各项：\n\n“(i) 构成外国诉讼中原告申索基础的所称$30 million本票（以下简称“本票”）的形成、磋商及／或订立；(ii) 所称本票违约；任何事实及情况，包括与被告、Vivien Chen及／或其父亲之间或之中的任何协议或谅解有关的通讯，而根据该等协议或谅解，本票将由其父亲通过向被告作出赠与或以其他方式偿还或清偿；(iii) Vivien Chen在原告中的权益或对原告的控制；(iv) 起诉状中的所有指称，以及与被告的答辩及其积极抗辩有关的所有事项。”\n\n17. 于4 August 2011，Angela在本案中发出单方面原诉传票，并以她的第一份确认书支持。该确认书的实质内容基本上是Angela在加州诉讼中已提出的抗辩及动议通知所提出的事项。\n\n预先确定可采性（见：Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1978] AC 547，第654页，Kinkel的Keith勋爵意见F-G；以及Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012，第§70/6/16段）。\n\n23. 就第三方文件披露而言，与口头证言相对，似乎存在一些相互冲突的判例权威。Angela（安吉拉）的资深大律师Sussex先生援引上诉法院（Court of Appeal）在Predi Wave Corp.（普雷迪浪潮公司）v New World TMT Ltd（新世界TMT有限公司）[2007] 4 HKC 206一案中的裁决。该裁决似乎支持如下命题：在评估所寻求证据和文件的相关性时，香港法院应适当重视外国法院就该等证据和文件相关性所作出的裁决。另一方面，Vivien（薇薇安）的资深大律师Ho先生依赖于Au暂委高等法院法官在Primarius Capital LLC（普里马里乌斯资本有限责任公司）v Jayhawk Capital（松鸦资本）一案中作出的裁决；该案未刊载，HCMP No 1961 of 2008（于21 April 2009作出裁决）。他主张，香港法院在考虑是否向外国法院提供法律协助时，应重新审视证据和文件相关性的问题。\n\n24. 作为上诉法院的裁决，Predi Wave对本院具有严格约束力。此外，Au暂委法官在Primarius Capital一案中的裁决似乎仅限于支持以下命题：(i) 该条例第76条规定，香港法院采取严格做法，不容许当地关于针对非当事人证人的披露法律所承认的“钓鱼式调查”；以及(ii) 就文件披露而言，申请人必须遵守第76(4)条规定的要求。无论如何，我无须解决两种做法之间表面上的差异，因为我将在下文的裁决中详述，我同意Lavin法官的观点，即Vivien的证据与裁定California Action（加利福尼亚诉讼）中的各项争议有关。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-15 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 13 of 20\n\n下列两项事实的相关性\n\n25. 法院是否应因披露该两项事实而撤销该命令？\n\n26. 我认为，该两项事实与该申请的是非曲直无关。根据请求书第10段，要求Vivien就其中提及的四项事项作证，包括但不限于：该票据的形成、谈判及订立；该票据被指称的违约；与Angela、Vivien及其父亲之间达成的任何协议或谅解有关的任何事实和情况，包括通信内容，即该票据将由其父亲通过向Angela赠与的方式偿还或解除。换言之，要求Vivien就自该票据于1995年订立时起至今的广泛事项提供证据。该两项事实可能与Angela就近年某些事项所作指称的有效性有一定关联。然而，在该票据于1995年订立时的早期年份所发生的事情，同样是California Action中的法院必须调查的关键事项。作为同一家庭成员，应要求Vivien就其对所称赠与及家庭安排的知悉情况（如有）提供证据，而这正是California Court（加利福尼亚法院）发出该请求书的其中一个原因。尽管Vivien否认对这些事项具有任何个人知情，但这是应由California Court裁定的问题。\n\n27. 此外，Angela（安吉拉）依赖于该《建议书》（Proposal），其中载有Vivien（薇薇安）的如下手稿：“是否由[陈先生（Mr. Chen）]额外赠与[安吉拉]30 million US dollars，完全由其决定；[薇薇安]不会反对。尤其是，[安吉拉]称[陈先生]数年前已同意给予她该笔款项。”\n\n28. 据安吉拉称，该手稿表明薇薇安知悉该赠与安排。薇薇安对此提出异议，并就其为何在《建议书》中写下该等文字作出一些解释。再次强调，该事项应由California Court（加利福尼亚州法院）妥为调查，而薇薇安的证据对于该法院就此作出正确决定将至关重要。\n\n29. 表面看来，该两项事实可能削弱安吉拉在California Action（加利福尼亚州诉讼）中提出的某些主张，例如，薇薇安是否在Rostack（Rostack公司）于2009年提起加利福尼亚州诉讼时对其施加了控制，或薇薇安是否导致了《本票》（Note）执行的任何延误。尽管如此，安吉拉能够出示一封日期为17 October 2011、由Man先生（Mr. Man）的律师发出的信函，该信函表明Man先生并未对Rostack或其事务行使任何日常管理控制，包括加利福尼亚州诉讼的推进及处理。安吉拉称，由于Rostack的董事余先生（Mr. Yu）及区女士（Madam Au）仅为Nan Fung Group（南丰集团）的中层雇员，薇薇安仍有可能就加利福尼亚州诉讼的处理对Rostack施加控制。再次强调，此事应由加利福尼亚州法院调查。\n\n30. 如本院拒绝提供司法协助，则可能导致严重的司法不公，因为加利福尼亚州法院将失去考虑一名可能极为重要的证人薇薇安之证据的机会；至少在早年期间，薇薇安在家族内与陈先生及安吉拉关系密切。若无该等机会，加利福尼亚州法院将只能有限度地审视证据，从而更难就该项请求的是非曲直作出正确决定。该等可能发生的司法不公，是Hong Kong court（香港法院）真正关切的问题。此外，由于陈先生现因健康状况而无法在加利福尼亚州法院作证，我认为薇薇安的证据在加利福尼亚州诉讼中将变得更为重要。\n\n31. 另一方面，薇薇安并无遭受实质不利。该命令实质上仅为外国法院发出的传票。薇薇安在Examiner（审查官）面前作证时，完全有机会向加利福尼亚州法院提出其案情及证据以供考虑；命令其在审查官面前作证，我不会视为侵犯其权利或隐私。安吉拉的申请亦不能被视为轻率、滋扰或滥用法院程序。亦无人主张根据《请求书》（Letter of Request），薇薇安被要求披露的证据或文件过多，以致法院应作“蓝笔删改”。因此，即使披露了该两项事实，香港法院仍应向加利福尼亚州法院提供法律协助，以落实该《请求书》。\n\n重大不披露？\n\n32. 我接下来须考虑的问题是，香港法院是否应因安吉拉在Lavin法官（Judge Lavin）面前的《动议通知书》（Notice of Motion）聆讯中，以及在Hui聆案官（Master Hui）面前依据O. 70提出的申请中未披露该两项事实，而拒绝提供协助。\n\n（一）加利福尼亚州法院的《动议通知书》聆讯\n\n33. 尽管薇薇安并非当事人，但Lavin法官面前的《动议通知书》聆讯仍属双方聆讯。在该等情况下，我怀疑是否适用全面及坦诚披露的义务。\n\n34. 就陈先生于2008年的精神健康程序而言，香港法院曾作出保密命令，禁止公布该程序。该保密命令其后有所放宽，但在Lavin法官进行聆讯时，该命令对各方仍具约束力。尽管如此，安吉拉及Rostack当时均知悉该两项事实，但双方均不认为该两项事实具有相关性，以致须向香港法院申请许可，在加利福尼亚州法院披露或援引该等事实。\n\n35. 这并不令人意外，因为该两项事实与加利福尼亚州法院审理的申请无关。据薇薇安称，该两项事实具有相关性，因为其将摧毁安吉拉在加利福尼亚州诉讼中的某些主张，包括薇薇安仍在控制Rostack，以及其延误了《本票》的执行。然而，所有该等主张均明显受到安吉拉争议，并将涉及安吉拉在加利福尼亚州诉讼中抗辩的是非曲直及可信性。这些显然是加利福尼亚州法院审讯应处理的事项。\n\n36. 此外，鉴于预期薇薇安将就自1995年至今的广泛事项提供证据，安吉拉无须披露可能影响其就仅发生于近年事件所作某些主张可信性的事实或证据。因此，依我判断，该两项事实与是否应要求薇薇安在香港于审查官面前就指定事项作证，毫无关联。\n\n37. 我亦不接受安吉拉因未在加利福尼亚州诉讼中披露该两项事实而恶意行事，或试图对薇薇安施加不当压力。至当时为止，加利福尼亚州诉讼的当事人显然均知悉该两项事实。此外，薇薇安在审查官面前作证时，将完全有机会提出其案情及证据，而审讯法官在考虑该项请求的是非曲直时，必然会知悉该两项事实。因此，安吉拉为在加利福尼亚州诉讼中取得不公平优势而隐瞒该两项事实，毫无意义。\n\n38. 在其补充陈词中，Ho S.C.（何资深大律师）提交称，由于尚不确定加利福尼亚州法院将如何看待在《动议通知书》聆讯中未披露该两项事实，适当的程序应为撤销单方面命令，并指示安吉拉重新向加利福尼亚州法院提出申请，全面披露有关材料。何资深大律师称，该做法与Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012第§70/6/2所建议的做法一致，其中载明：“[如]对此事有任何疑问，香港法院可准许各方将问题交回提出证据请求的外国法院或法官处理（见：American Express Warehousing Ltd v Doe [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 222）。”\n\n39. 恕我直言，我认为该建议毫无理据。《请求书》的条款明确。加利福尼亚州法院要求薇薇安就涵盖相当长期间的广泛事项作证。如上所述，未披露该两项事实不应对是否应命令薇薇安在审查官面前作证的决定产生任何实际影响；我认为要求安吉拉重新向加利福尼亚州法院提出申请，是浪费时间及费用。如薇薇安对该命令感到受屈——该命令实际上不过是外国法院发出的传票——适当程序是由其按其认为适当的方式向加利福尼亚州法院申请撤销《请求书》。由于《请求书》仍然有效，香港法院应落实该请求。\n\n（二）Hui聆案官面前的单方面申请\n\n40. Hui聆案官面前的申请属单方面申请，故全面及坦诚披露的义务适用。然而，即使最初存在不披露，是否撤销该命令仍属酌情决定。只要任何不披露并非故意，且未披露事项并无造成严重不利，通常做法应为行使酌情权支持提出请求的法院（见：Re Troielli [1995] 2 HKC 785，Barnett法官于796I-797A；Re New World TMT Ltd & Others [2006] HKEC 1598，第§82段；以及Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012第§70/6/16）。\n\n41. 根据《请求书》，预期薇薇安将就广泛事项提供证据，而其证据对于加利福尼亚州法院了解1995年订立《本票》时所发生的事情及其后发展至关重要。该两项事实至多只会影响安吉拉就近年某些事件所作主张的可信性，故与Hui聆案官面前申请的目的毫无关联。如上所述，面对请求书中称某人为必要证人的陈述，香港法院不应为预先决定相关性及可采纳性的问题，而过度细致地审查诉讼中的争点及案件情况。因此，我不认为安吉拉在单方面申请中违反了全面及坦诚披露的义务。\n\n42. 即使我在该特定问题上有误，法院仍有充分理由不撤销该命令。我注意到何资深大律师向我援引A. Cheung法官当时在Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration（未刊载，HCAL 74/2007，判决日期为13 February 2008）一案中的判决；该博学法官指出，就重大不披露而撤销单方面命令的管辖权，乃属纪律性，实则惩罚性的管辖权，完全不论该申请的是非曲直。然而，即使假定安吉拉在单方面申请中未履行全面及坦诚披露的义务（我不接受事实如此），撤销该命令实际上将意味着加利福尼亚州法院失去考虑一名可能极为重要的证人薇薇安之证据的机会，而加利福尼亚州法院将只能有限度地审视证据，从而可能导致严重的司法不公。由于安吉拉并非试图对薇薇安施加不当压力，迫使其在审查官面前作证，且未披露该两项事实并未造成严重不利，香港法院应落实该《请求书》。\n\nI　I\nJ　J\nK　K\nL　L\nM　(\ni\nd\nok\n)\nD\nL\nav\nD\ni\ngh\nH\nC\nd\nJu\nt\nrt\nep\nu\ny\nou\ng\ne　Ni\nN　N\nh\nM\nC\nl\nS\nS\n.C\nd\nM\nD\nl\ni\nL\ned\nb\nr.\nM\nar\nes\nst\nD\nL\nA\nu\nss\nex\nct\nan\nr.\nou\ng\nas\nam\nn\nru\nes\ny\nsr\ns.\n,\nP\ni\nH\nf\nth\nK\nl\nai\nti\nf\nP\nf\np\ner\non\ng\non\nor\ng\ne\nn\n,\nP　M\nA\nb\nH\nd\nS\n.C\nM\ni\nV\nD\ni\ned\nr.\nct\nb\nM\nm\nro\nse\nst\nct\nM\no\nan\nr.\nor\naw\nes\nn\nru\nes\nsr\ns.\ny\nay\ner　P\nQ　,\nB\nJS\nf\nth\nM\nl\nef\nd\nD\nt\nro\nn\nw\nor\ne\nen\nan\n,\nR　R\nS　S\nT　T\nU　U\nV　V","key_entities":["CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5214,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:55:02"}