Haldanes Solicitors Uselessly Used Wrong Procedure To Add a Defamation Counterclaim to a Defence

Haldanes Solicitors Uselessly Used Wrong Procedure To Add a Defamation Counterclaim to a Defence, And Should Pay Indemnity Costs to Its Opponent, Says Judge Queeny Au-Yeung in HCA 492/2020 [2021] HKCFI 1040 - DEEPAK PAGARANI AND HIRO BHARWANI v. HALDANES SOLICITORS & NOTARIES (A FIRM) 

Ms Jezamine Fewins, of Stephenson Harwood, for the plaintiffs


Mr Barry Barlow, SC, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for the defendant


https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=135819&currpage=T

留言

發佈留言

此網誌的熱門文章

Barrister Sio Chan In Devin Heavily Criticized By Court

蕭震然大律師俾法官狂鬧 ! Barrister Sio Chan In Devin Heavily Criticized! https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/10/barrister-devin-sio-heavily-criticized-by-the-court.html?m=1 https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/4/203459/Barrister-rapped-for-being-on-back-foot Deputy judge Ho Chun-yiu asked Devin Sio Chan-in, who represents Chan Tin-yau, whether he was prepared to defend his client, to which Sio stuttered and said he had not prepared speeches for similar cases in the past. He told Ho that he hoped the court would adjourn the case until they obtained the report on the girl. In a rare outburst, the judge asked: "You know it's time to plead today, right? I may hand down the sentence today! How can you not prepare anything?" "How many years have you been a barrister?" Ho asked. "Seven," Sio replied in a softspoken voice. Sio was also criticized for not knowing about the injuries to the four-year-old victim. He admitted that he was not prepared with reg
閱讀更多

黃纓淇大律師俾法官鬧兩句就喊到豬頭咁冇鬼用不如妳成熟啲先至出嚟執業啦妹妹仔！影衰晒成個法律界！

黃纓淇大律師俾法官鬧兩句就喊到豬頭咁冇鬼用不如妳成熟啲先至出嚟執業啦妹妹仔！影衰晒成個法律界！ https://m.mingpao.com/ins/ 港聞 /article/20210625/s00001/1624622294099/3 男涉非法集結案 - 裁判官頻介入盤問被疑偏頗 - 辯方要求避席申請被駁回 FLCC 895/2020 [2021] HKMagC 9 主審裁判官：裁判官陳炳宙 裁決日期：2021年9月16日  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=138753&currpage=T 186.  當本席作為裁判官，察覺盤問時的問題對證人不公平，自當有責任指出，因為公平的審訊不單止要對被告人公平，也要對控方證人公平。當黃大律師錯誤引述證人的證供時，本席自然有責任提出。當黃大律師所提出的問題存在含糊之處，本席亦有責任要求她先澄清。 187.  控方梅大律師認為黃大律師在盤問第二控方證人時，有關證物D3的問題不公平，所以主動提出反對，指證人在主問階段只被要求畫出「大約位置」在證物P34a(iii)上。當時黃大律師沒有反駁代表控方的梅大律師。那麼，她便是接受自己的問題的確不妥，亦不認為本席須介入。如果她認為自己的問題沒有不妥，她可以繼續陳詞，據理力爭，說服本席。本席從來沒有阻止她陳詞。而且，她隨後的確成功利用了該地圖來繼續對證人作出盤問。 188.  現在黃大律師聲稱梅大律師的反對基礎不正確，因為梅大律師的確要求警員畫出準確的位置。本席認為，現階段無需決定梅大律師有否犯錯。本席在黃大律師口頭陳詞時，曾經向她解釋本席的腦袋並非超級電腦，無可能清楚記得整個審訊中每一個人的每一句說話。姑且假設梅大律師的反對是基於錯誤地引述主問的問題，既然連黃大律師自己也沒有反駁梅大律師，並表現得接受梅大律師的反對理由，現在卻反過來指責本席不即時介入，阻止梅大律師的不公平反對，便是對本席不公平。黃大律師最終撤回她這項不公平的指責。 189.  本席的確在梅大律師反對盤問的問題時，向梅大律師表達自己對年輕一代大律師的不滿，但那些說話並非嘲諷或責備黃大律師，而只是為安撫這名具豐富經驗的梅大律師，希望他稍安毋躁，不必經常對黃大律師的一些問題提出反對。事實上，本席當時提出如果本席對黃大律師的問題作出
閱讀更多