Pieris Vs Pieris – sllr 2005 volume 1 page 213

In the case between Pieris (plaintiff/respondent) and Pieris (defendant/appellant), the issue concerned whether a disposition by the Commissioner of National Housing (document P9) qualified as a public document and could be admitted into evidence without requiring testimony from the executants, pursuant to the Evidence Ordinance. It was held that such a document, as a public record, is presumed genuine and admissible without independent proof of its execution. This conclusion reaffirmed that under the Evidence Ordinance, specifically sections 62, 74, 76, 77, and 79, public documents benefit from procedural presumptions that obviate the need for testimonial proof from individuals involved in their execution. This interpretation serves to streamline the evidentiary process for public records