Zhang v King David Investments Limited

The case of Zhang v King David Investments Limited was a civil dispute between Jie Zhang, the Plaintiff, and King David Investments Limited, the First Defendant. The issue at hand pertained to the provision of a Chinese interpreter for the Plaintiff to use during the examination of a witness. The First Defendant argued that since the interpreter would assist the Plaintiff in giving evidence, the responsibility for providing the interpreter fell on the Plaintiff. In contrast, the Plaintiff's counsel, Mr Deliu, contended that the recent decision in Li v Commissioner of Police mandated that the Court must provide an interpreter in civil proceedings where necessary. The case was heard and determined on the papers.

The central legal issue was whether the Court had a duty to provide an interpreter in civil proceedings, particularly in cases involving parties who required language assistance. The Court needed to determine the extent to which the decision in Li v Commissioner of Police could be applied to the current case and whether it established a broad principle that the Court must provide an interpreter in all civil proceedings. The Court also needed to consider the implications of section 80(3) of the Evidence Act 2006, which states that a witness in a civil proceeding is "entitled to" communication assistance.

The Court held that the decision in Li v Commissioner of Police could not be read to establish a broad principle that the Court must provide an interpreter in all civil proceedings. Duffy J interpreted section 80(3) of the Evidence Act more narrowly, finding that it meant that a party in a civil proceeding is entitled to have access to an interpreter if necessary, rather than being entitled to the provision of an interpreter by the Court. The Court also noted that Wylie J’s reference to "the Crown" as a source of funds should not be interpreted to mean "the Court," but rather the Commissioner of Police. Furthermore, the Court found that policy reasons might justify an exception to the general principle in cases involving proceeds of crime, but this case did not fall into that category. Consequently, the Court ruled that the general practice in civil proceedings should apply, meaning the party calling a witness must bear the cost of providing an interpreter.

In conclusion, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff, Jie Zhang, should ensure that an interpreter is provided for the examination of the witness. The Court emphasized that the question of who bears the costs of the interpreter will ultimately be determined by the outcome of the case in accordance with the principle that costs follow the event.