PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS

PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success: the related documents would not materially affect liability beyond what invoices disclose, the judge's exercise of discretion was not vitiated, and the same reasoning applied to the other categories.

Citation
PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: PAUL S MODELS ART GMBH & CO. KG; 1st Defendant/respondent: U.T. LIMITED; 2nd Defendant/respondent: KWAN YUET MING; 3rd Defendant/respondent: LAM WAI TONG; 4th Defendant/respondent: GATEWAY GLOBAL LIMITED; 5th Defendant/respondent: GATEWAY GLOBAL (H.K.) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 March 2011
Case Number
HCA1501/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (discovery) With Counterclaim / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Discovery Judgment (hearing and Judgment Refusing Leave)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants to be assessed summarily on paper.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Leave to Appeal, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Document Categories, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Appeal Costs Disclosure Leave to Appeal Exercise of Judicial Discretion Document Categories +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAUL S MODELS ART GMBH & CO. KG

Plaintiff/applicant

U.T. LIMITED

1st Defendant/respondent

KWAN YUET MING

2nd Defendant/respondent

LAM WAI TONG

3rd Defendant/respondent

GATEWAY GLOBAL LIMITED

4th Defendant/respondent

GATEWAY GLOBAL (H.K.) LIMITED

5th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (discovery) With Counterclaim / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Discovery Judgment (hearing and Judgment Refusing Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether related documents (purchase orders, shipping documents, accounting records) must be disclosed in addition to invoices
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of the judge's discretion was vitiated by mistake or misstatement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success: the related documents would not materially affect liability beyond what invoices disclose, the judge's exercise of discretion was not vitiated, and the same reasoning applied to the other categories.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants to be assessed summarily on paper.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, to be assessed by summary assessment on paper.