ALEXINA INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KEYSBERG LTD AND OTHERS

ALEXINA INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KEYSBERG LTD AND OTHERS

The judge exercised discretion to refuse the plaintiffs' summonses for further discovery of the seven contested documents because the originals were not shown to be necessary for fair disposal of the trial, would be of marginal value given the stage and evidence already before the court, and ordering exhaustive searches or affidavits would impose an unfair and disproportionate burden on the defendants; the summonses were dismissed with costs.

Citation
ALEXINA INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KEYSBERG LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Alexina Investments Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Sovereign Nominees Limited (formerly Roche Nominees Limited); 1st Defendant: Keysberg Limited; 2nd Defendant: Collinwood Limited; 3rd Defendant: Carrasco Investments Limited; 4th Defendant: Manohar Rajaram Chhabria; 5th Defendant: Jumbo International Holdings Ltd; 6th Defendant: Chandru Samtani; Third Party: Vijay Mallya
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2003
Case Number
HCA6359/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Litigation Discovery Application / Trial in Progress; Hearing of Discovery Summonses During Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' two summonses for further discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Production of Originals, Necessity Vs Relevance, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Commercial Litigation Discovery Specific Discovery Production of Originals Necessity Vs Relevance 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexina Investments Limited

1st Plaintiff

Sovereign Nominees Limited (formerly Roche Nominees Limited)

2nd Plaintiff

Keysberg Limited

1st Defendant

Collinwood Limited

2nd Defendant

Carrasco Investments Limited

3rd Defendant

Manohar Rajaram Chhabria

4th Defendant

Jumbo International Holdings Ltd

5th Defendant

Chandru Samtani

6th Defendant

Vijay Mallya

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Litigation Discovery Application / Trial in Progress; Hearing of Discovery Summonses During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must produce originals of seven specified documents
  2. 2 Whether defendants must file affidavits explaining absence of originals
  3. 3 Whether further discovery is necessary for fair disposal of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised discretion to refuse the plaintiffs' summonses for further discovery of the seven contested documents because the originals were not shown to be necessary for fair disposal of the trial, would be of marginal value given the stage and evidence already before the court, and ordering exhaustive searches or affidavits would impose an unfair and disproportionate burden on the defendants; the summonses were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' two summonses for further discovery dismissed

Orders

  • The two Summonses of the plaintiffs for further discovery are dismissed with costs
  • The remainder of the items in the Summonses abandoned