SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

Court found that privilege had been waived by deployment of the contents of the documents in the affidavit but refused to order production because the documents were not necessary to the fair disposal of the striking out application and their only material effect was to record a solicitor's charge over recoverable costs; application for production was dismissed.

Citation
SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Eric Edward Hotung; 1st Defendant: Ho Yuen Ki; 2nd Defendant: Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung; 3rd Defendant: Sean Eric McLean Hotung; 4th Defendant: Hillhead Limited; 5th Defendant: Sheridan Patricia; 6th Defendant: Gabrielle Marie Hotung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2006
Case Number
HCMP2820/2002
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Proceedings (action No.571/2003; Hcmp2820/2002; Hcmp4511/2002) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery and Production of Documents
Outcome
Application for specific discovery and production dismissed; no order for production of the two documents.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Waiver of Legal Professional Privilege, Production of Documents, Striking Out Application, Order 24 Rule 13(1), Order 85 Rules 2(1) & (3)(c)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Costs Trustees Law Specific Discovery Waiver of Legal Professional Privilege Production of Documents +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Edward Hotung

Plaintiff

Ho Yuen Ki

1st Defendant

Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung

2nd Defendant

Sean Eric McLean Hotung

3rd Defendant

Hillhead Limited

4th Defendant

Sheridan Patricia

5th Defendant

Gabrielle Marie Hotung

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Proceedings (action No.571/2003; Hcmp2820/2002; Hcmp4511/2002) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery and Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether legal professional privilege in respect of two retainer/deed documents was waived by reference in affidavit
  2. 2 Whether the court should order production of those documents under Order 24 rule 13(1) despite waiver
  3. 3 Whether the documents were relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the striking out application or to save costs

Ratio Decidendi

Court found that privilege had been waived by deployment of the contents of the documents in the affidavit but refused to order production because the documents were not necessary to the fair disposal of the striking out application and their only material effect was to record a solicitor's charge over recoverable costs; application for production was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for specific discovery and production dismissed; no order for production of the two documents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order for production of the documents referred to in Mr Peaker's affidavit