When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Thursday 1 October 2009
We gave wrong name for informant, lawyers admit
Lawyers for fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen admitted yesterday they had mistakenly given the wrong name for an informant about a controversial land deal quoted during the court battle over the will of late tycoon Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum.
Lawyers for fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen admitted yesterday they had mistakenly given the wrong name for an informant about a controversial land deal quoted during the court battle over the will of late tycoon Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum.
But the lawyers refused to reveal the actual informant, saying the identity of their source should be protected by legal professional privilege.
The admission came in the Court of First Instance during the hearing of an attempt by the man named in court, businessman Edmund Chang Wa-shan, to have the source’s identity revealed.
Chang, a securities and property investment professional, was named by Chan’s counsel, Ian Mill QC, as the person who had provided a document relating to a land deal in which disgraced former lawmaker Gilbert Leung Kam-ho bought the land back from Wang’s company, Chinachem, at the price he sold it for 20 years earlier. The document was used to attack the testimony of Leung, a key witness for the Chinachem Charitable Foundation, Chan’s rival for Wang’s estate.
In July, Chang sued Chan for libel, saying he had never been a source for Chan or his legal team and he had been called a traitor by friends and colleagues because they thought he had supported Chan’s legal battle.
Yesterday barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, for Chang, told Mr. Justice Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor that the false statement had been made with “malice” and the gravity of the situation required the other side to reveal the identity of the real leak.
Tong said Chan’s solicitor, Jonathan Midgley of law firm Haldanes, had described it as an “unfortunate and innocent” mistake arising from miscommunication - which Tong found to be a “strange” explanation.
“It was not his place to say this was an innocent and harmless mistake,” Tong said, adding defamation had been committed. Tong said Mill told the probate judge, Mr. Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon, in open court that the source of the document was “Edmund Tsang” after Midgley had given the barrister the name.
In an affidavit in court to explain the matter, Tong said, Midgley had said he got the name in a telephone conversation with “a representative” of the person who had provided the document. Tong said Midgley had claimed that when he asked the representative where the document came from, the representative said it was from a “Mr. Edmund Tsang” - widely understood to be Chang.
Tong said Midgley explained that the representative had misunderstood the question and thought he was asking about the person to whom Leung had given the document. Tong said Midgley could not be said to be totally innocent if libel had been committed.
Jonathan Harris SC, for Chan, replied that the statement Mill made in open court could not be defamatory in itself. Harris said Chan had agreed to clarify the matter and to place a correction notice in the media to clear Chang’s name. But Tong countered that a clarification did not affect Chang’s right to pursue disclosure.
Leung - jailed for vote buying in the early 1990s - was one of the key witnesses for the foundation in the probate hearing that began in May this year and concluded with lawyers’ closing addresses this month.
The person who introduced Chan to Wang in 1992, Leung said Chan, as his fung shui master, had advised him to burn millions of dollars in banknotes to keep himself out of jail. He also contradicted Chan’s claim to have been Wang’s long-time lover, saying their relationship was typical of a fung shui master and client.
His credibility was attacked by Mill when it was revealed he paid Chinachem about HK$1.1 million for the land in Tai Po last year, a month after he signed a witness statement. Mill said that was what Chinachem had paid Leung for it in 1988. Leung denied there was any connection between the sale and his evidence.
Outside court yesterday Tong said Chang had never received the alleged document from Leung in relation to the land project. Saying that Chang did not ask for an apology, Tong noted Chan’s lawyers had offered about a week ago to issue a joint statement in the media for clarification.
2 comments:
We gave wrong name for informant, lawyers admit
Yvonne Tsui
30 September 2009
Lawyers for fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen admitted yesterday they had mistakenly given the wrong name for an informant about a controversial land deal quoted during the court battle over the will of late tycoon Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum.
But the lawyers refused to reveal the actual informant, saying the identity of their source should be protected by legal professional privilege.
The admission came in the Court of First Instance during the hearing of an attempt by the man named in court, businessman Edmund Chang Wa-shan, to have the source’s identity revealed.
Chang, a securities and property investment professional, was named by Chan’s counsel, Ian Mill QC, as the person who had provided a document relating to a land deal in which disgraced former lawmaker Gilbert Leung Kam-ho bought the land back from Wang’s company, Chinachem, at the price he sold it for 20 years earlier. The document was used to attack the testimony of Leung, a key witness for the Chinachem Charitable Foundation, Chan’s rival for Wang’s estate.
In July, Chang sued Chan for libel, saying he had never been a source for Chan or his legal team and he had been called a traitor by friends and colleagues because they thought he had supported Chan’s legal battle.
Yesterday barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, for Chang, told Mr. Justice Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor that the false statement had been made with “malice” and the gravity of the situation required the other side to reveal the identity of the real leak.
Tong said Chan’s solicitor, Jonathan Midgley of law firm Haldanes, had described it as an “unfortunate and innocent” mistake arising from miscommunication - which Tong found to be a “strange” explanation.
“It was not his place to say this was an innocent and harmless mistake,” Tong said, adding defamation had been committed. Tong said Mill told the probate judge, Mr. Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon, in open court that the source of the document was “Edmund Tsang” after Midgley had given the barrister the name.
In an affidavit in court to explain the matter, Tong said, Midgley had said he got the name in a telephone conversation with “a representative” of the person who had provided the document. Tong said Midgley had claimed that when he asked the representative where the document came from, the representative said it was from a “Mr. Edmund Tsang” - widely understood to be Chang.
Tong said Midgley explained that the representative had misunderstood the question and thought he was asking about the person to whom Leung had given the document. Tong said Midgley could not be said to be totally innocent if libel had been committed.
Jonathan Harris SC, for Chan, replied that the statement Mill made in open court could not be defamatory in itself. Harris said Chan had agreed to clarify the matter and to place a correction notice in the media to clear Chang’s name. But Tong countered that a clarification did not affect Chang’s right to pursue disclosure.
Poon reserved his judgment.
Leung - jailed for vote buying in the early 1990s - was one of the key witnesses for the foundation in the probate hearing that began in May this year and concluded with lawyers’ closing addresses this month.
The person who introduced Chan to Wang in 1992, Leung said Chan, as his fung shui master, had advised him to burn millions of dollars in banknotes to keep himself out of jail. He also contradicted Chan’s claim to have been Wang’s long-time lover, saying their relationship was typical of a fung shui master and client.
His credibility was attacked by Mill when it was revealed he paid Chinachem about HK$1.1 million for the land in Tai Po last year, a month after he signed a witness statement. Mill said that was what Chinachem had paid Leung for it in 1988. Leung denied there was any connection between the sale and his evidence.
Outside court yesterday Tong said Chang had never received the alleged document from Leung in relation to the land project. Saying that Chang did not ask for an apology, Tong noted Chan’s lawyers had offered about a week ago to issue a joint statement in the media for clarification.
Post a Comment