ZHANG ZHATZEWAL AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ANOTHER

ZHANG ZHATZEWAL AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ANOTHER

The court held that the documents sought were relevant to at least one live issue (the Changs' investment experience and the question of beneficial ownership), that the requests as limited (including temporal limits) were not oppressive and were sufficiently certain, and that where prior affirmations did not comply fully with Ord.24 r.7(1) further affirmations must be provided; accordingly discovery orders requiring such affirmations were granted with specified limits.

Citation
ZHANG ZHATZEWAL AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action Hca805/2009); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim) and 1st Defendant in Hca1996/2009: Shanghai Commercial Bank Limited; 1st Defendant (original Action Hca805/2009); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Chang Yuan Ta Grant; 2nd Defendant (original Action Hca805/2009); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Chang Ching Ho; 1st Plaintiff in Hca1996/2009; Respondent in Discovery Applications: Zhang Zhatzewal also known as Chang Chih Hwa (Clark Chang); 2nd Plaintiff in Hca1996/2009; Respondent in Discovery Applications: Chang Kung Da (KD Chang); Applicant for Discovery; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim) in Hca805/2009 and 2nd Defendant in Hca1996/2009: The Bank of East Asia Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Case Number
HCA1996/2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Discovery Applications in Civil Banking Litigation / Heard in Chambers; Application for Discovery Under Rules of the High Court Order 24 R.7(1)
Outcome
Discovery applications granted in part.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Relevance of Documents, Oppression in Discovery, Investor Experience, Misrepresentation, Duty of Care
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Banking Law Professional Negligence Evidence and Disclosure Discovery of Documents Relevance of Documents Oppression in Discovery Investor Experience +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shanghai Commercial Bank Limited

Plaintiff (original Action Hca805/2009); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim) and 1st Defendant in Hca1996/2009

Chang Yuan Ta Grant

1st Defendant (original Action Hca805/2009); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Chang Ching Ho

2nd Defendant (original Action Hca805/2009); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Zhang Zhatzewal also known as Chang Chih Hwa (Clark Chang)

1st Plaintiff in Hca1996/2009; Respondent in Discovery Applications

Chang Kung Da (KD Chang)

2nd Plaintiff in Hca1996/2009; Respondent in Discovery Applications

The Bank of East Asia Limited

Applicant for Discovery; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim) in Hca805/2009 and 2nd Defendant in Hca1996/2009

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Discovery Applications in Civil Banking Litigation / Heard in Chambers; Application for Discovery Under Rules of the High Court Order 24 R.7(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the classes of documents sought by BEA are relevant to the issues in the actions
  2. 2 Whether the discovery orders would be oppressive to the respondents
  3. 3 Whether the document classes were defined with sufficient certainty

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the documents sought were relevant to at least one live issue (the Changs' investment experience and the question of beneficial ownership), that the requests as limited (including temporal limits) were not oppressive and were sufficiently certain, and that where prior affirmations did not comply fully with Ord.24 r.7(1) further affirmations must be provided; accordingly discovery orders requiring such affirmations were granted with specified limits.

Court Disposition

Discovery applications granted in part.

Orders

  • Applications for discovery in HCA805/2009 and HCA1996/2009 granted insofar as respondents are ordered to file and serve affidavits or affirmations under Rules of the High Court Order 24 r.7(1) in relation to the specified classes of documents.
  • Respondents to file and serve the required affidavits/affirmations within 28 days from the date of the order.