Chin Kam Chiu v. Fti Consulting, Inc and Others

HCA 1347/2019

[2020] HKCFI 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1347 OF 2019

______________

______________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

1.This is an application before me by the plaintiff for leave to adduce an additional affirmation after the evidence has prima facie closed for the purposes of the hearing of the defendants’ application for an order to strike out the action and an order to restrain Mr Chin from instituting other actions against them pursuant to section 27 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4).

2.The affirmation in question is one made by Mr Ng Kei‑man (吳紀民).  One of the things he does in the affirmation is to produce a compact disc audio recording of the criminal proceedings in the District Court relating to Mr Chin in DCCC 919/2015.  I do not think this should be permitted.  The entire criminal record is not a matter relevant to these proceedings.  It is true that the defendants have queried that the plaintiff did not have a transcript of the proceedings when he apparently included certain passages that appear to be quotations from what was said in the proceedings.  But, if those matters are relevant at all, what can simply be done is for the plaintiff to identify the precise parts in terms of minutes and seconds of the record so that, if the defendants wish to do so, they can check the accuracy of those quotations.

3.The other parts of Mr Ng’s affirmation are really Mr Ng’s opinion, particularly his opinion on whether or not Mr Sutton, the 9^th defendant, was eligible under the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap 50) to give the forensic accounting evidence that he gave inter alia in the criminal proceedings.  In particular, Mr Ng appears to suggest that without a practising certificate, it was a breach of section 29 of the Professional Accountants Ordinance for Mr Sutton to have produced the report in question and given evidence in court.  It seems to me that even if that is an issue arising in relation to the hearing, that is a matter of the interpretation of the law for the court.  It is also difficult to see how the accounting standards referred to by Mr Ng related to any issues in question in the defendants’ application to be heard in February.  It also seems to me that Mr Ng is simply a member of the HKICPA without any practising certificate as he himself states.  Nothing has been said to satisfy the court that Mr Ng has any special expertise or qualifications to opine on the matters that he has set out in his affirmation.

4.I do not think in all these circumstances that Mr Ng’s evidence is of any probative value and I do not think that it will assist the court in the determination of the application in February.  The plaintiff’s summons of 24 December 2019 is therefore to be dismissed.

[Submissions on costs]

5.It will be dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.