CHOI CHUN MING v. COSCO-HIT TERMINALS (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

CHOI CHUN MING v. COSCO-HIT TERMINALS (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Wholesale discovery and broad interrogatories were unnecessary and disproportionate; investigation limited to whether the 1st Defendant received reports of the two prior accidents, whether the 1st Defendant informed the 2nd Defendant, and the 2nd Defendant's reply; witness statements to be provided within fixed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHOI CHUN MING v. COSCO-HIT TERMINALS (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Choi Chun Ming; 1st Defendant: COSCO-HIT TERMINALS (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: Capital Human Resources Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2009
Case Number
HCPI151/2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Case Management Conference
Outcome
Limited discovery and investigation allowed; extensive discovery and carte blanche interrogatories refused; timetable and directions fixed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Admission of Similar Fact Evidence, Witness Statements, Case Management, Directions, Winding Up
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Tort Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Admission of Similar Fact Evidence Witness Statements Case Management +2 more

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

Parties

Choi Chun Ming

Plaintiff

COSCO-HIT TERMINALS (HONG KONG) LIMITED

1st Defendant

Capital Human Resources Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether full scale discovery and carte blanche interrogatories on previous similar accidents were necessary
  2. 2 Whether investigation should be limited to whether the 1st Defendant received reports of prior accidents and informed the 2nd Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant should have instructed the Plaintiff to alight in light of prior similar accidents

Ratio Decidendi

Wholesale discovery and broad interrogatories were unnecessary and disproportionate; investigation limited to whether the 1st Defendant received reports of the two prior accidents, whether the 1st Defendant informed the 2nd Defendant, and the 2nd Defendant's reply; witness statements to be provided within fixed timetables (1st Defendant 28 days, 2nd Defendant 42 days) and next CMC fixed for 22 June 2009 at 2:30 pm.

Court Disposition

Limited discovery and investigation allowed; extensive discovery and carte blanche interrogatories refused; timetable and directions fixed

Orders

  • Admit two additional witness statements on similar accidents (previous decision)
  • Restrict investigation to: (1) whether the 1st Defendant received reports of the two accidents as stated in witness statements; (2) whether the 1st Defendant informed the 2nd Defendant of the reports; (3) reply from the 2nd Defendant