Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxx Xxxx are executive directors, and the independent non-executive directors are Xx. Xxx Xxxxxxxx, Xx. Xx Xxxxx Xxxx, Mr. Xx Xxxxx, Mr. Xx Xxxxxxx, Xx. Xxx Xxxxx and Xx. Xx Xxxxxxx.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxxxx.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxx Xxx Xxx as executive Directors; Xx. Xx Xxx Xx and Mr. Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx as non-executive Directors; and Xx. Xxxx Xxx Xxxx, Mr.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxx Xxx; the non-executive director is Xx. Xx Mun Xxx Xxxxxxx (Vice Chairman); and the independent non-executive directors are Xx. Xx Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxx Xx and Xx.
Xxxxxx and Xx. XXX Jiqing shall have been added to the Board, such that the members of the Board shall consist of Messrs. GAO Jifan, LIU Canfang, SHI Jianwei, YIP Xxx Xxxxx, XX Xxxxxxx, XXX Xxxxxx, Xxxxx XXX, Xx. Xxxx X. HANSEN, and XXX Xxxxxx.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxx Xxxxxxx; the
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxx shall be admitted as a Nonvoting Member of the Company upon receipt by the Company of the $130,000 referred to above.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx were cross-examined at length. Xx. Xxxxxx was not cross-examined. For the court to find facts in favour of the defendant I must therefore satisfy myself that, when juxtaposed with xxxxxx’x unchallenged testimony and the admitted documents, the factual evidence of Messrs. Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx are so unreliable or discredited by cross-examination as to render the plaintiff’s case unbelievable. The standard of proof would naturally be the civil one of a preponderance of probabilities. (My emphasis). [10] It is not correct to say that the learned trial Judge shifted the legal burden of proof on the defendant. Before analysing the factual issues, the learned trial Judge outlined the approach he would take. What did the learned trial Judge have before him by way of evidence? He had the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx and the evidence-in-chief of Xxxxxx and documentary evidence. He had no viva voce evidence from the other side (it may have put in documentary evidence). He reasoned quite rightly, in my judgment, that the appellant having called no witness of fact, if therefore he had to find facts in favour of the appellant, he must satisfy himself that when he examined the documentary evidence and the evidence given by the Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx including the uncontroverted testimony of Xxxxxx, the evidence of Messrs. Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx must be so unreliable or discredited by cross-examination so as to render the respondent’s case unreliable. [11] The evidential burden was on the respondent that is the burden of proof in the sense of adducing evidence to establish his case. If the other side leads evidence, that evidence may weaken or destroy the plaintiff’s case [respondent’s]. In the instant case there was no evidence coming from the appellant [defendant]. Evidence given by Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and the uncontroverted testimony of Xxxxxx on behalf of the respondent, it follows therefore only the cross-examination and documentary evidence were capable of discrediting Xxxxxx and the documentary evidence of discrediting the uncontroverted testimony of Xxxxxx. If the evidence led on behalf of the respondent was discredited or unreliable then he will find in favour of the appellant. This is in effect what the learned trial Judge was saying and in my judgment that must be correct because he had nothing else to go on. [12] As I said above in paragraph 3 of this judgment the learned trial Judge outlined the preliminary issues as referred there...
Xxxxxx and Xx. X.X. Xxxxx, Directors, and on behalf of Lever Brothers & Unilever N.V. by X. Xxxxxx and X.X. Xxxxxxx, Directors.
Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxx Xxxxxxxx; and three Independent Non-Executive Directors, namely Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxx, Xx. Xxxx Xx (alias Xxxx Xxx Xxx) and Xx. Xxx Xxxx.
