Guo v Xu [2020] NSWSC 337

Guo v Xu [2020] NSWSC 337

The Court ordered verified discovery because the requested communications were relevant to factual questions bearing on whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order, those communications were not within the plaintiff's knowledge, and KCG and GEI did not identify any particular difficulty or burden in giving discovery, especially given their earlier agreement to do so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Motion for Discovery in Proceeding Seeking a Freezing Order in Aid of Hong Kong Proceedings / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 21 February 2020 for Verified Discovery, Heard on the Papers Before the Hearing on Whether the Interlocutory Freezing Order Should Continue
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion for verified discovery granted; costs of the motion made the plaintiff's costs in the claim against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'freezing Orders' 'good Arguable Case' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['discovery' 'freezing Orders' 'good Arguable Case' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List; Motion for Discovery in Proceeding Seeking a Freezing Order in Aid of Hong Kong Proceedings / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 21 February 2020 for Verified Discovery, Heard on the Papers Before the Hearing on Whether the Interlocutory Freezing Order Should Continue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Fourth and Fifth Defendants should provide verified discovery of documents relevant to whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order.' 'Whether the discovery sought was too broad or unnecessary because there was no substantive proceeding in the Court, discovery had not been sought in Hong Kong, the plaintiff may already have some correspondence, and the plaintiff had delayed in the Hong Kong proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered verified discovery because the requested communications were relevant to factual questions bearing on whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order, those communications were not within the plaintiff's knowledge, and KCG and GEI did not identify any particular difficulty or burden in giving discovery, especially given their earlier agreement to do so.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion for verified discovery granted; costs of the motion made the plaintiff's costs in the claim against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants.

Orders

  • ['Within 28 days of the making of this order, the Fourth and Fifth Defendants provide verified discovery of all documents created between 1 October 2014 and the date of commencement of these proceedings which record or evidence communications between officers, employees, representatives or agents of Keynes Capital...