DMITRY YANISHEVSKIY v. MAXIM MOSKALEV

DMITRY YANISHEVSKIY v. MAXIM MOSKALEV

The court ordered production of specified original earlier documents (Items 4–6 of the 8 Additional Samples) and originals of the Defendant's identity documents for inspection by the experts because originals assist expert examination and the Defendant's lack of recollection did not displace their utility; the court refused to order the 20 additional samples within a 5‑year range as disproportionate because an adequate pool of about 28 usable signatures already exists and many sought documents are insufficiently contemporaneous to the disputed signature.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Dmitry YANISHEVSKIY; Defendant: Maxim MOSKALEV
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 January 2026
Case Number
HCA1840/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Debt Under Promissory Note / Interim Application for Production of Document Samples and Expert Evidence (chambers Ruling)
Outcome
Summons granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Compellability of Documents, Expert Evidence, Handwriting Authentication, Disclosure, Sample Signatures, Proportionality, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Forensic Handwriting Contract Debt (promissory Note) Compellability of Documents Expert Evidence Handwriting Authentication +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dmitry YANISHEVSKIY

Plaintiff

Maxim MOSKALEV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Debt Under Promissory Note / Interim Application for Production of Document Samples and Expert Evidence (chambers Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order production of additional signature samples to handwriting experts
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant must produce originals of identity documents showing his signature
  3. 3 Whether the existing sample pool is adequate for expert opinion and the appropriate temporal scope of samples

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered production of specified original earlier documents (Items 4–6 of the 8 Additional Samples) and originals of the Defendant's identity documents for inspection by the experts because originals assist expert examination and the Defendant's lack of recollection did not displace their utility; the court refused to order the 20 additional samples within a 5‑year range as disproportionate because an adequate pool of about 28 usable signatures already exists and many sought documents are insufficiently contemporaneous to the disputed signature.

Court Disposition

Summons granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide Items 4 to 6 of the 8 Additional Samples to the handwriting authentication experts for their examination
  • Defendant to produce originals of all passports and identity documents in his possession to be held by his solicitors and made available to the experts for testing and examination