In this Hong Kong decision from 2017, the liquidator in winding up proceedings was given leave to seek expert determination. A list of questions provided was deemed too vague, and the court suggested that the liquidator was using the exercise as an attempt to fish for evidence.
“The Court considered the proposed list of expert questions submitted by the liquidator in light of the following basic principles:
- Expert evidence must be confined to the live issues between the parties.
- A court should refuse to admit evidence that is plainly inadmissible or irrelevant. However, it may adduce evidence where it is unable to form a clear view of its relevance.
- Expert questions should be closely defined rather than open ended.
The Court made clear that the liquidator’s proposed questions fell significantly short of these standards. In particular, the Court found that the liquidator was hampered by its failure to adequately set out the factual evidence in its affidavit, resulting in an over-reliance on the expert report to make its case. It noted that “this is putting the cart before the horse. A party cannot fish for evidence under the disguise of putting the other party to strict proof or seeking to adduce expert evidence on non-issues.”“
To see an article on the case, click here.
To see the original judgment, click here.