KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

The appeal was dismissed because the powers of attorney sought were not part of the pleaded false evidence in the action and mere relevance did not satisfy the purposes in Order 24 r 13(1); specific discovery aimed principally at impeaching credit is not generally permitted; the master properly exercised his discretion in refusing production.

Citation
KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KAN WAI CHUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: KAN KAR FAI; 3rd Plaintiff: KAN WAI MING; 4th Plaintiff: LAU FOOK KEUNG; 5th Plaintiff: KAN FOR PING STEVEN; 1st Defendant: HAU WUN FAI; 2nd Defendant: LI SIU FUNG; 3rd Defendant: YEUNG WAI HUNG PETER; 4th Defendant: LEE KWOK YUNG (trading together as HAU, LAU, LI & YEUNG); 5th Defendant (clerk): (name not listed); 1st Third Party: SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Third Party: SHINY DEVELOP LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 February 2015
Case Number
HCA811/2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Master's Order for Discovery (order 24) / Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order dated 3 September 2014 to stand.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Order 24, Specific Discovery, Forgery / False Documents, Impeachment of Credit
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Tort (conspiracy) Costs Discovery Order 24 Specific Discovery Forgery / False Documents +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAN WAI CHUNG

1st Plaintiff

KAN KAR FAI

2nd Plaintiff

KAN WAI MING

3rd Plaintiff

LAU FOOK KEUNG

4th Plaintiff

KAN FOR PING STEVEN

5th Plaintiff

HAU WUN FAI

1st Defendant

LI SIU FUNG

2nd Defendant

YEUNG WAI HUNG PETER

3rd Defendant

LEE KWOK YUNG (trading together as HAU, LAU, LI & YEUNG)

4th Defendant

(name not listed)

5th Defendant (clerk)

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

1st Third Party

SHINY DEVELOP LIMITED

2nd Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Master's Order for Discovery (order 24) / Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 24 rr 10(1) and 11(1) required production of the requested powers of attorney
  2. 2 Whether the subject documents fall within the purposes in Order 24 r 13(1) (disposing fairly or saving costs)
  3. 3 Whether specific discovery may be ordered for the purpose of impeaching the credit of a party

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the powers of attorney sought were not part of the pleaded false evidence in the action and mere relevance did not satisfy the purposes in Order 24 r 13(1); specific discovery aimed principally at impeaching credit is not generally permitted; the master properly exercised his discretion in refusing production.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order dated 3 September 2014 to stand.

Orders

  • Costs to follow the event; plaintiffs to pay the costs of this appeal to the defendants
  • Costs to be summarily assessed