SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Judge had properly exercised her discretion in refusing additional discovery and particulars on grounds that the documents were unnecessary to the contractual issues in the action (with discrimination matters addressed in separate proceedings), and because residual discretion required ending interlocutory skirmishing to avoid further delay and cost; interlocutory orders will not be disturbed absent error of law or principle or clear wrong.

Citation
SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Sunny Tadjudin; Defendant/respondent: Bank of America, National Association
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Case Number
HCMP337/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Employment Contract/discrimination; Interlocutory Discovery and Particulars / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders (discovery and Particulars)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Particulars, Leave to Appeal, Implied Terms, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Discrimination Law Contract Law Discovery Particulars Leave to Appeal Implied Terms +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunny Tadjudin

Plaintiff/applicant

Bank of America, National Association

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Employment Contract/discrimination; Interlocutory Discovery and Particulars / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders (discovery and Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against interlocutory orders on discovery and particulars
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law or principle in refusing specific discovery items and further particulars
  3. 3 Whether documents requested were relevant and necessary for disposing of the action or constituted fishing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Judge had properly exercised her discretion in refusing additional discovery and particulars on grounds that the documents were unnecessary to the contractual issues in the action (with discrimination matters addressed in separate proceedings), and because residual discretion required ending interlocutory skirmishing to avoid further delay and cost; interlocutory orders will not be disturbed absent error of law or principle or clear wrong.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused and application dismissed with costs to the defendant
  • Order pursuant to RHC O.59 r.2A(8) that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing