Pei Zheng Middle School and Another v. China Pui Ching Educational Foundation Ltd and Others

HCA946/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 946 OF 2003

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

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

Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 2 September 2009

Date of Decision : 2 September 2009

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision : 7 September 2009

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

REASONS  FOR  DECISION

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

1.On 2 September 2009, I ruled that the expert reports prepared by the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th defendants’ historians, 雷雨田教授 and 趙立人教授 are inadmissible and ordered them to be expunged from the court file.  I have indicated that I would give my reasons, which I now do.

Background

2.The background is briefly this. 

3.In 1889, 培正書院was established by members of the Baptist Church in Guangzhou.  It adopted the name私立廣州培正中學校in 1928 about 20 years after it had moved to a permanent premises in Dongshan, Guangzhou.  In the 1930s, branches of the school were established in Hong Kong and Macau, which changed their names to香港培正中學and澳門培正中學in 1950.  The 2^nd plaintiff has managed these two schools since 1958.

4.In 1953, 私立廣州培正中學校was nationalized by the PRC Government.  Since then different schools had occupied the Dongshan premises.

5.Over the years, there were many attempts to restore the name of廣州培正中學by its alumni and persons associated with the school.  Eventually on 22 December 1984, the Guangzhou Government agreed to allow its name to be restored, which took place in 1985 when廣州市第五十七中學, which was then operating at the Dongshan resumed the use of the name廣州市培正中學.  That school is the 1^st plaintiff.

6.The 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants are Hong Kong companies.  The 2^nd defendant is a director of the 1^st and 4^th defendants.  The plaintiffs sued the defendants for various acts of passing off by their use of and in connection with the name培正.

7.The defendants alleged, among other things, that any goodwill in the name培正was extinguished or vested in the PRC Government by virtue of the nationalization in 1953.

Discussion

8.雷雨田教授specializes in Chinese religious history, especially the development and history of Christianity in China and history of religion in Guangdong Province.  趙立人教授specializes in the general history of Guangdong.  Both professors touched upon the historical events relating to培正中學in Guangzhou, which are largely not in dispute.  (雷雨田教授sought to support the defendants’ case disputed by the plaintiffs, that 培正書院was established for the purpose of disseminating Christianity.  But as pointed out in the course of submissions, that is simply irrelevant.)  They also dealt with what they perceived to be the policy behind the nationalization in 1953.

9.But what is pertinent to the question if the goodwill in the name培正had become extinguished or vested in the PRC Government by virtue of the nationalization in 1953 is not the underlying policy.  It is the effect of such nationalization, which has already been dealt with by the defendants’ PRC law expert.  That being the case, the evidence of the two professors is irrelevant and will not add anything further to the defendants’ case.

Conclusion

10.For these reasons, I ruled that their experts’ reports are inadmissible and ordered them to be expunged from the court file.

Mr Felix H. Pao, instructed by Messrs JSM, for the Plaintiffs

Mr K.M. Chong and Ms Emma Wong, instructed by  Messrs David Y.Y. Fung & Co., for the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th Defendants