JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO v. PIMATRONICS LTD

JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO v. PIMATRONICS LTD

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested documents were relevant and necessary rather than a fishing expedition; conspiracy was not properly pleaded so discovery to support speculative inferences was impermissible; alleged payments to a third party did not, on pleaded facts, render the agreement illegal; the plaintiff's affirmations and disclosed print‑outs were adequate for Order 24 purposes.

Citation
JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO v. PIMATRONICS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) and 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.; Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): PIMATRONICS LIMITED; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): LEE MAN HOI OCEAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 June 2012
Case Number
HCA611/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Decision on Summons for Discovery
Outcome
Defendant's summons for specific discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Relevance, Fishing Expedition, Illegality, Conspiracy, Commissions
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Anti‑corruption Law Discovery Relevance Fishing Expedition Illegality +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.

Plaintiff (original Action) and 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

PIMATRONICS LIMITED

Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

LEE MAN HOI OCEAN

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Decision on Summons for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established existence/possession/custody/power of the requested documents
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents were relevant to matters in question and necessary for fair disposal or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether the discovery request amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested documents were relevant and necessary rather than a fishing expedition; conspiracy was not properly pleaded so discovery to support speculative inferences was impermissible; alleged payments to a third party did not, on pleaded facts, render the agreement illegal; the plaintiff's affirmations and disclosed print‑outs were adequate for Order 24 purposes.

Court Disposition

Defendant's summons for specific discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's summons dismissed
  • Costs of the application, including reserved costs and costs of the hearing with counsel's certificate, to the plaintiff, summarily assessed at HK$55,000, to be paid within 14 days from the date hereof