TAIWAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Jui-Hua Fan, Hsiang-Yang Hsieh, Chia-Hsin Wu, Chi-Ying Lee and Jin-Han Hsieh, Formosa Transnational Attorneys At Law
dure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Admin - istrative Litigation Act. Pursuant to the above acts, every person is under a general duty to testify in a lawsuit proceeding if this person has witnessed a certain set of facts that are relevant to the proceeding. That is, witnesses are required to state their own observations to the court in the trial proceedings as ordered or summoned by the court. In a civil or administrative litigation procedure, a wit - ness may, by consent of the parties, make written statements that set forth their testimony. In most cases, a witness of facts will be subject to direct examination by the party that calls the witness and to cross-examination by the opposing party. When being called to testify in a lawsuit proceeding, a witness may decline to answer any questions if the witness has proper grounds (such as self-incrimi - nation) to do so. Otherwise, the witness will have to answer questions raised in the direct and/or cross- examination, as well as questions raised by the pre - siding judge. Failure to give testimony without due cause will result in sanctions. 7.2 Expert Witness Role and Procedure Expert opinions are frequently relied upon by courts in antitrust law cases. In particular, when it comes to complicated economic issues or technology issues, courts tend to request institutions with relevant knowl - edge or experience to render expert opinions. In most cases, expert opinions are made in the form of a written statement. Authors of these opinions will be called to testify only if the courts consider it necessary. When testifying in court, an expert witness will be examined and cross-examined by the parties. The expert witness will also have to answer questions raised by the presiding judges. In some cases, parties will appoint their own experts to produce expert opinions without the court’s prior permission. In this situation, the opposing party will usually dispute the qualifications of the expert. It will
be subject to the court’s discretion whether to accept the opinions made by an expert appointed by one of the parties. 8. Damages 8.1 Damages: Assessment, Passing On and Interest Assessment of Damages Article 30 of the TFTA stipulates that an enterprise that violates any of the provisions of the TFTA and thereby infringes upon the rights and interests of another shall be liable for damages arising therefrom. The amount of damages shall be assessed on the basis of actual injury suffered by the victim(s), and then, in practice, the court can possibly take the fol - lowing factors into consideration: • the impact of the violation on the related market and industries; • the degree of severity of the violation; • the interest(s) acquired by the perpetrator from the violation; • the duration of the violation; and • the intent or the degree of negligence of the perpe - trator. Pursuant to Article 31 Paragraph 1 of the TFTA, courts may grant punitive compensation if the victim (plaintiff) has established that the infringer (defendant) commit - ted the violation wilfully. In these circumstances, the court has the discretion to treble the amount of the The TFTA does not expressly provide for a pass- on defence. Taiwan’s courts have not yet directly addressed whether a pass-on defence will be viable when considering the amount of damages. Interest Pursuant to Article 203, Article 229 Paragraph 2 and Article 233 Paragraph 1 of Taiwan’s Civil Code, if an enterprise is found by courts to be liable for compen - sation of damages to the injured parties, the violat - ing enterprise shall be held by the court to be liable victim’s established loss. “Passing-On” Defences
237 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook