HUSSIN TAYYIB v. CHAN KAI CHIN t/a CHIN YIU ENGINEERING CO. AND ANOTHER

HUSSIN TAYYIB v. CHAN KAI CHIN t/a CHIN YIU ENGINEERING CO. AND ANOTHER

Because interrogatories under the District Court rules require prior leave and must be limited to matters necessary for fair disposal or saving costs, and because the proposed interrogatories were technically defective (failed to specify who must answer each question under O26 r3A), in part sought discovery or peripheral matters not necessary for disposing the claim, leave to serve them was refused and the summons for an unless order was dismissed.

Citation
HUSSIN TAYYIB v. CHAN KAI CHIN t/a CHIN YIU ENGINEERING CO. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Hussin Tayyib; 1st Respondent: Chan Kai Chin trading as Chin Yiu Engineering Co.; 2nd Respondent: W. Hing Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Case Number
DCEC543/2013
Procedural Posture
Employee Compensation / Interlocutory Summons for Unless Order and Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for leave to serve interrogatories dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Leave to Serve Interrogatories, Unless Order, Discovery, Witness Statement, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Evidence Personal Injury Interrogatories Leave to Serve Interrogatories Unless Order Discovery +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hussin Tayyib

Applicant

Chan Kai Chin trading as Chin Yiu Engineering Co.

1st Respondent

W. Hing Construction Company Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employee Compensation / Interlocutory Summons for Unless Order and Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unless order could be made compelling answers to interrogatories absent prior leave under Order 26 RDC
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to serve interrogatories under Order 26 RDC
  3. 3 Whether the proposed interrogatories comply with mandatory requirement of O26 r3A specifying who must answer each interrogatory

Ratio Decidendi

Because interrogatories under the District Court rules require prior leave and must be limited to matters necessary for fair disposal or saving costs, and because the proposed interrogatories were technically defective (failed to specify who must answer each question under O26 r3A), in part sought discovery or peripheral matters not necessary for disposing the claim, leave to serve them was refused and the summons for an unless order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for leave to serve interrogatories dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Application for leave to serve interrogatories dismissed