Yiu Shing Yin "An Evasive Dishonest Liar", Says Court [2018] HKDC 514 (DCCJ 4437 / 2016)
Yiu Shing Yin "An Evasive Dishonest Liar", Says Court - https://defamation.law.blog/2019/03/23/defence-of-consent-in-hong-kong-defamation-law/
Yiu Shing Yin (姚盛賢) v Kwok Yik Ho (郭奕河) & Cheng Siu Yung (鄭少容) - [2018] HKDC 514 (DCCJ 4437 / 2016) - https://defenceofconsent.blogspot.com/2020/12/defence-of-consent-in-hong-kong.html
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=115106&currpage=T
9. Mr Yiu gave evidence first. I observed his demeanour, looked at the contemporaneous documents, and considered the probabilities of his evidence. I found Mr Yiu to be an evasive dishonest liar whose evidence, in so far as it was self-serving, was wholly unreliable, plainly ludicrous in certain parts, and rejected by me as false.
10. The following are some examples of how “plainly ludicrous” certain parts of Mr Yiu’s evidence really were: -
(1) Mr Yiu alleged under cross-examination by Mr Damian Wong, Counsel for Mr and Mrs Kwok, that he intended to attend the IO’s Annual General Meeting on 8th May 2015 (“the AGM”) in person, but also authorized and paid 2 persons to vote as his proxies at the AGM, as he needed “assistants”. That made no sense whatsoever since each unit in the Estate should only have one vote (with the weight of that vote being determined by the unit’s undivided shares in the Estate) and voting would just be a matter of putting a tick on a piece of paper with a pen and then inserting that piece of paper into a ballot box. It would not take 3 persons to do so.
(2) Mr Yiu further alleged the words “食屎、呃錢、屎忽鬼” [English translation: “Eats Shit, Cheating People’s Money, Arsehole”] written on a promotional sign of the Business [B/17] could be part of the original format (格式) of that sign, as opposed to the result of criminal acts of vandalism. In my judgment, it was highly unlikely that an aluminium window business would choose to include such derogatory, offensive and insulting words as part of the format of its own promotional sign.
(3) Mr Yiu suggested to Mr Damian Wong, Counsel for Mr and Mrs Kwok, that he should ask Mrs Kwok to speak in Punti, as Mrs Kwok’s Punti was incomprehensible to him and for that reason he never managed to understand what Mrs Kwok had said to him. However, when Mrs Kwok gave oral evidence, it was crystal clear she spoke perfect Punti. Mrs Kwok could and did express herself in Punti perfectly well, directly contrary to what Mr Yiu alleged.
11. Mr Enzo Chow, Counsel for Mr Yiu, sensibly conceded in his oral closing that Mr Yiu’s evidence on the proxy forms, as summarized in paragraph 10(1) above, was “a bit ridiculous” and “a bit unbelievable”.
12. Mr Yiu alleged the Words were false. The Words were: -
“自2015年6月19日，富多來新邨第二期業主立案法團，由姚盛賢先生當主席後，(他是利用假的授權書當選的，當時前管委會主席龔文輝先生已報警)… ”
“到2015年4月至5月期間，姚盛賢到處揚言，他一定要當富多來立案法團主席(第十一屆)當時因為我們不支持他，他就叫夜班的管理員破壞本舖的招牌及棄掉了超過五十多個。(到姚生當了法團主席後，他繼續針對性的破壞本舖的招牌)…”
Comments
Post a Comment