LILY TSE LAI YIN AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

LILY TSE LAI YIN AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

The court held that s58(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance exempts Data Protection Principle 3 where the use of the data is for purposes including remedying unlawful conduct, and that civil tort claims for damages fall within that exemption; alternatively Principle 3(b) permits use where the civil use is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LILY TSE LAI YIN AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LILY TSE LAI YIN; 2nd Plaintiff: TSUI HO; 3rd Plaintiff: NG PAK MUI; 4th Plaintiff: TSUI WAI NGON (by her father and next friend TSUI SIU ON); 5th Plaintiff: CHAN MIN WAH; 6th Plaintiff: LEUNG PUI YING (by her father and next friend LEUNG TAI FUK); 7th Plaintiff: TSUI SAI NUI (Personal Representative of MO YEE, deceased); 1st Defendant: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE (also known as THE OWNER INCORPORATION OF ALBERT HOUSE); 2nd Defendant: HOUSING MANAGEMENT AGENCY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: HO WING HANG; 4th Defendant: NEW BEST RESTAURANT LIMITED; 5th Defendant: ABERDEEN WINNER INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED; 6th Defendant: WONG KAY ON trading as HANG ON DEMOLITION AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 1998
Case Number
HCPI828/1997
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries/fatal Accidents / Interlocutory Hearing on Non Party Discovery (o.24 R.7) — Hearing and Ruling 10 December 1998; Trial on Liability Listed May 1999
Outcome
Plaintiffs' three summonses for non-party discovery granted against the Director of Buildings, Director of Urban Services and the Commissioner of Police; disclosure ordered.
Legal Topics
Non Party Discovery, Use and Disclosure of Police Witness Statements, Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance S58 Exemption, Statutory Conflict and Construction, Protective Undertakings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Data Protection Non Party Discovery Use and Disclosure of Police Witness Statements Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance S58 Exemption Statutory Conflict and Construction Protective Undertakings

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LILY TSE LAI YIN

1st Plaintiff

TSUI HO

2nd Plaintiff

NG PAK MUI

3rd Plaintiff

TSUI WAI NGON (by her father and next friend TSUI SIU ON)

4th Plaintiff

CHAN MIN WAH

5th Plaintiff

LEUNG PUI YING (by her father and next friend LEUNG TAI FUK)

6th Plaintiff

TSUI SAI NUI (Personal Representative of MO YEE, deceased)

7th Plaintiff

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE (also known as THE OWNER INCORPORATION OF ALBERT HOUSE)

1st Defendant

HOUSING MANAGEMENT AGENCY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

HO WING HANG

3rd Defendant

NEW BEST RESTAURANT LIMITED

4th Defendant

ABERDEEN WINNER INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

5th Defendant

WONG KAY ON trading as HANG ON DEMOLITION AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries/fatal Accidents / Interlocutory Hearing on Non Party Discovery (o.24 R.7) — Hearing and Ruling 10 December 1998; Trial on Liability Listed May 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unedited witness statements held by the Police and files held by Government departments are discoverable to plaintiffs despite PDPO Principle 3
  2. 2 Whether s58(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance exempts Principle 3 where use is for remedying unlawful conduct including civil tort claims
  3. 3 Whether the PDPO conflicts with s42 High Court Ordinance and, if so, which statute prevails

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s58(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance exempts Data Protection Principle 3 where the use of the data is for purposes including remedying unlawful conduct, and that civil tort claims for damages fall within that exemption; alternatively Principle 3(b) permits use where the civil use is directly related to the original investigative purpose. Therefore there is no inconsistency preventing orders under s42 High Court Ordinance and non-party discovery of the requested departmental files and unedited witness statements was ordered subject to appropriate safeguards.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' three summonses for non-party discovery granted against the Director of Buildings, Director of Urban Services and the Commissioner of Police; disclosure ordered.

Orders

  • Grant of non-party discovery under O.24 r.7(8) and s42 High Court Ordinance requiring the Director of Buildings to produce files relating to the canopy and fish tank installation
  • Grant of non-party discovery requiring the Director of Urban Services to produce files relating to the canopy and fish tank installation and approvals