CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS

CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS

The application for specific discovery was refused because the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the requested documents existed and were in the possession, custody or power of the defendants and failed to show sufficient relevance; the defendants' sworn affirmations that they did not possess the documents were conclusive at the interlocutory stage and, even if jurisdiction existed, the court would refuse disclosure in exercise of its discretion as the discovery was unnecessary and disproportionate given marginal probative value and costs.

Citation
CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Club Ace Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Island Asian Inc; 1st Defendant: Pang Kin Shing, Michael; 2nd Defendant: Chan Chun Chung; 3rd Defendant: Lo Chi Sum
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2007
Case Number
HCA342/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Under Order 24 R.3 and R.7
Outcome
Application for specific discovery (Item No.2) declined/dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Legal Professional Privilege, Settlement, Fiduciary Duties, Interlocutory Relief, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Evidence Professional Privilege Discovery Legal Professional Privilege Settlement +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Club Ace Limited

1st Plaintiff

Island Asian Inc

2nd Plaintiff

Pang Kin Shing, Michael

1st Defendant

Chan Chun Chung

2nd Defendant

Lo Chi Sum

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Under Order 24 R.3 and R.7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are under obligation to give specific discovery of documents relating to separate High Court actions (HCA 2030-2035)
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that the documents exist and are or were in the possession, custody or power of the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in the present action

Ratio Decidendi

The application for specific discovery was refused because the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the requested documents existed and were in the possession, custody or power of the defendants and failed to show sufficient relevance; the defendants' sworn affirmations that they did not possess the documents were conclusive at the interlocutory stage and, even if jurisdiction existed, the court would refuse disclosure in exercise of its discretion as the discovery was unnecessary and disproportionate given marginal probative value and costs.

Court Disposition

Application for specific discovery (Item No.2) declined/dismissed

Orders

  • Application for specific discovery relating to HCA nos.2030-2035 refused
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause; order nisi to be made accordingly