HE JIAOZI v. LI LI

HCA 1473/2024 [2026] HKCFI 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1473 OF 2024 ____

BETWEEN

HE JIAOZI Plaintiff and LI LI (李鋰) Defendant ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge MK Liu in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing: 29 January 2026 Date of Decision: 29 January 2026 _____

D E C I S I O N _____ By a summons dated 10 October 2025 (“the Summons”), the Defendant (“D”) seeks an order that the originals (“the Originals”) of the following documents (“the Disputed Documents”) be delivered by the Plaintiff (“P”) to the Defendant (“D”)’s solicitors’ office for D’s forensic expert to inspect and examine: Service Agreement (僱傭勞務合同) dated 2023.10.05 Settlement Agreement (勞務報酬欠款合約及還款協議) dated 2024.05.13 Consultation Remuneration Confirmation (顧問報酬確認) dated 2024.05.14 Consultation Remuneration Particulars (顧問報酬具體事實明細) dated 2024.05.14 Consultation Remuneration Agreement (顧問報酬約定) dated 2024.05.14 (Receipt of Four Seasons Hotel) P’s case against D is based upon the Disputed Documents. D’s defence is that the purported signatures by D on the Disputed Documents are forged. In D’s affirmation dated 9 October 2025, D has produced copies of the Disputed Documents (“the Copies”). Counsel for D told me that D obtained the copies from P. On 24 October 2025, after considering the matter, Master Jocelyn Leung made no order on the Summons, and no order as to costs. This is the appeal against the Master’s decision. In accordance with the well-established principle, the appeal before me is a de novo hearing, and I approach D’s application made by the Summons as if the same came before me for the first time. P is absent in this hearing. However, she filed her 3rd

Affirmation on 26 January 2026 in opposition to the appeal. Thus, she is fully aware of this appeal hearing. I therefore proceed to hear the appeal in P’s absence. I have also considered the points made by P in her 3rd Affirmation. The following rules in the Rules of the High Court are relevant: Order 24 rule 10(1) allows inspection of the original documents referred to in pleadings and affidavits. Order 24 rule 13 provides that no order for the production of any documents for inspection shall be made “unless the Court is of opinion that the order is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.” Having perused P’s pleadings, while some of the Disputed Documents have been referred to therein, it is not clear whether all the Disputed Documents have been mentioned in the pleadings. Nevertheless, it is clear that all the Disputed Documents are mentioned in P’s 3rd Affirmation. In my view, as a matter of fairness, D is entitled to have an order requiring P to deliver the Originals to D for inspection. Since P’s case is based upon the Disputed Documents, D is entitled to see and to inspect the Originals. However, it would be too early to say that there would be expert evidence in this case. D should see the Originals first and then to consider what should be the next step. Depending upon the result of the inspection, the next step may or may not

be examining the Originals by a forensic expert. To state the obvious, if the Originals are something very different from the Copies, or if the Originals have not been purportedly signed by D, it may not be necessary to consider introducing expert evidence. Thus, I am minded to make an order requiring P to deliver the Originals to D to inspect, but I would not state that the inspection would be an inspection by a forensic expert. If after the inspection, D considers that expert evidence is necessary, D may make an application for leave to introduce expert evidence in this case. In her 3rd Affirmation, P made the following points: The Originals are now in Chinese Mainland. Article 36 of the Data Security Law (《中華人民共和國數據安全法》) prohibits provision of any data stored in the Mainland to any judicial organ or law enforcement agency outside the Mainland. The Mainland Courts have made authoritative rulings on the authenticity of the Disputed Documents. D has already made admissions that he signed the Disputed Documents in the Mainland proceedings. D has made similar applications before and those applications were dismissed by masters. P resided in Tianjin. D’s insistence on hearings requiring P’s physical presence in Hong Kong, coupled with the late service of documents, is designed to cause prejudice and hardship to P. In my view, the points made by P do not constitute any valid ground

for making the inspection order as stated in §8 above: On the face of it, the Data Security Law in Mainland concerns the security of computer data. The Disputed Documents are physical papers and would not be computer data. Having considered P’s pleadings carefully, P has not pleaded any judicial decision by a Mainland Court on the authenticity of the Disputed Documents. Further, P has not pleaded any issue estoppel as a result of any judicial ruling by a Mainland Court. As to the alleged admission made by D in the Mainland proceedings, according to P, D’s admission is that D signed on some blank papers. That admission, even if indeed made by D, would not be an admission of signing the Disputed Documents by D. D is entitled to lodge an appeal against Master Leung’s decision. P has not explained why D’s appeal should not be entertained just because D was not successful at the Master level. P commenced these proceedings against D in Hong Kong. That being the case, the hearings in these proceedings would be conducted in the Hong Kong Court. As to the complaint of late service of the papers on P, P has not provided any particulars. Further, P is able to file her 3rd Affirmation in opposition to the appeal on 26 January 2026 and made various points therein. There is no substance in the complaint of the alleged late service. Although I am of the view that D is entitled to have an

order for inspection, the order to be made by me is different from the one sought by D in the Summons. In these circumstances, as to the costs of this appeal, there should be no order as to costs. Further, the decision of no order as to costs made by the Master should not be disturbed. I allow the appeal and set aside the Master’s order to the extent that there should be an inspection order as follows: P do bring the Originals to D’s solicitors’ office by herself or by a person authorized by her for D’s inspection and making copies thereof within 14 days after the service of this order on P. There be no order as to costs. I thank counsel for the helpful assistance rendered to the Court. (MK Liu) Deputy High Court Judge The Plaintiff was not represented and did not appear Ms Athena Wong, instructed by K.M. Tang & Co, for the Defendant