陳淦輝 v. 楊忠及另二人

陳淦輝 v. 楊忠及另二人

The restored summons was refused and adjourned sine die because it was not served on the 2nd defendant who should have been served given the documents sought were directly relevant to her defence; furthermore the plaintiff was debarred from restoring or fixing any fresh application on the same subject before the trial as an exercise of case management powers to prevent repetitive last-minute applications and abuse of court resources.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 3168
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim): 陳淦輝; 1st Defendant (original Action); 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim): 楊忠; 2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): 郭素月; 3rd Defendant (original Action); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim): 劉靜
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Case Number
HCA1122/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action — Interlocutory Discovery Application Under Evidence Ordinance (s21) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application Restored; Decision on Summons and Case Management Order With Trial Scheduled
Outcome
Summons adjourned sine die; plaintiff debarred from restoring or fixing any fresh or other application on same subject before the trial commencing 18 December 2023; no order as to costs of today’s hearing
Legal Topics
Discovery, Service of Process, Adjournment, Case Management, Debarring Applications
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Property (beneficial Ownership) Discovery Service of Process Adjournment Case Management Debarring Applications

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

陳淦輝

Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

楊忠

1st Defendant (original Action); 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

郭素月

2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

劉靜

3rd Defendant (original Action); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action — Interlocutory Discovery Application Under Evidence Ordinance (s21) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application Restored; Decision on Summons and Case Management Order With Trial Scheduled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a restored summons under s21 Evidence Ordinance can be heard without serving the 2nd defendant who is directly affected
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be debarred from restoring or fixing further hearings on the same subject before the imminent trial given repeated last-minute applications
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are directly relevant to the 2nd defendant's defence so as to require service and an opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The restored summons was refused and adjourned sine die because it was not served on the 2nd defendant who should have been served given the documents sought were directly relevant to her defence; furthermore the plaintiff was debarred from restoring or fixing any fresh application on the same subject before the trial as an exercise of case management powers to prevent repetitive last-minute applications and abuse of court resources.

Court Disposition

Summons adjourned sine die; plaintiff debarred from restoring or fixing any fresh or other application on same subject before the trial commencing 18 December 2023; no order as to costs of today’s hearing

Orders

  • Adjourn the plaintiff’s summons dated 8 February 2021 seeking banker’s records from HSBC in respect of the 1st defendant’s two bank accounts pursuant to s21 Evidence Ordinance, sine die.
  • Debar the plaintiff from restoring the summons, or fixing any fresh or other application concerning the same subject matter of the summons, to be heard on a date before the trial scheduled to commence on 18 December 2023.