JIM BEAM BRANDS CO. v. KENTUCKY IMPORTERS PTY LTD. AND ANOTHER

JIM BEAM BRANDS CO. v. KENTUCKY IMPORTERS PTY LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court refused to set aside the master's orders. Blanket claims of legal professional privilege and confidentiality were rejected; privilege must be asserted to particular questions/documents and ruled on at examination with the ultimate determination by the requesting court. The letters rogatory sought evidence relevant to issues before the US court and did not amount to an impermissible fishing expedition. Document production orders comply with the requirement to specify particular documents except for certain overbroad wording, which the court deleted; accordingly the master's orders were varied in limited respects and otherwise upheld.

Citation
JIM BEAM BRANDS CO. v. KENTUCKY IMPORTERS PTY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Jim Beam Brands Co.; 1st Defendant: Kentucky Importers Pty Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Kentucky Distributors Private Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 1992
Case Number
HCMP3449/1992
Procedural Posture
Application Under Evidence Ordinance and Order 70 for Assistance to Foreign Court by Letters Rogatory; Examination of Witnesses and Production of Documents / Chambers Hearing — Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Masters Orders
Outcome
Applications to set aside the orders were refused; orders requiring production of documents were varied in limited respects and otherwise upheld; order nisi for costs to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Letters Rogatory, Legal Professional Privilege, Bankercustomer Confidentiality, Production of Documents, Fishing Expedition / Pretrial Discovery, Comity, Particularity of Document Orders
Source Language
EN
Evidence Civil Procedure International Judicial Assistance Professional Confidentiality and Privilege Banking Law Letters Rogatory Legal Professional Privilege Bankercustomer Confidentiality +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Beam Brands Co.

Plaintiff

Kentucky Importers Pty Ltd.

1st Defendant

Kentucky Distributors Private Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Evidence Ordinance and Order 70 for Assistance to Foreign Court by Letters Rogatory; Examination of Witnesses and Production of Documents / Chambers Hearing — Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Masters Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders for examination and document production under letters rogatory should be set aside for legal professional privilege
  2. 2 Whether banker's confidentiality prevents production of banking documents sought by letters rogatory
  3. 3 Whether the requests amount to an impermissible fishing expedition or pretrial discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to set aside the master's orders. Blanket claims of legal professional privilege and confidentiality were rejected; privilege must be asserted to particular questions/documents and ruled on at examination with the ultimate determination by the requesting court. The letters rogatory sought evidence relevant to issues before the US court and did not amount to an impermissible fishing expedition. Document production orders comply with the requirement to specify particular documents except for certain overbroad wording, which the court deleted; accordingly the master's orders were varied in limited respects and otherwise upheld.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside the orders were refused; orders requiring production of documents were varied in limited respects and otherwise upheld; order nisi for costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Applications by Kentucky Importers Pty Ltd. and Kentucky Distributors Private Ltd. to discharge or vary Master Bokhary's orders refused
  • Orders for examination of four witnesses under letters rogatory to stand (examinations to proceed subject to witnesses being able to object questionbyquestion under s.77)