ALLIED GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

ALLIED GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

The Court allowed the appeal: recipients of unused material are not barred from using material that has been made public by being referred to in open court and recorded in judgments or transcripts; on the facts the plaintiffs could, and should be given retrospective leave and permitted to re-amend their statement of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ALLIED GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Allied Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Allied Properties (HK) Limited; 1st Defendant: The Secretary for Justice; 2nd Defendant: Nicholas Charles Allen
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2003
Case Number
CACV1/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Implied Undertaking, Unused Material, Use of Material in Open Court, Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Retrospective Leave to Use Documents, Vicarious Liability of Government, Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Public Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Confidentiality Law Implied Undertaking Unused Material +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allied Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

Allied Properties (HK) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

The Secretary for Justice

1st Defendant

Nicholas Charles Allen

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recipients of 'unused material' in criminal proceedings are barred by an implied undertaking from using material once it has been referred to in open court or judgment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is an abuse/scandalous/vexatious and contemptuous
  3. 3 Whether retrospective leave should be granted to use disclosed documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal: recipients of unused material are not barred from using material that has been made public by being referred to in open court and recorded in judgments or transcripts; on the facts the plaintiffs could, and should be given retrospective leave and permitted to re-amend their statement of claim to pursue a fraud-based challenge to prior judicial review judgments, including pleading vicarious liability; the strike-out and refusal of retrospective leave were reversed and costs orders below set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Retrospective leave granted to the plaintiffs to use and rely upon the documents referred to in the amended statement of claim
  • Order permitting re-amendment of the statement of claim