LEUNG PO PO AND ANOTHER v. OLYMPIC LEADER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

LEUNG PO PO AND ANOTHER v. OLYMPIC LEADER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Order 26 Rule 3A permits an agent of a party to be specified to answer interrogatories where that agent acted on the party's behalf; on the facts Toplis (through Mr Terence Cheng) was QBE's agent and the contested interrogatories 5, 6 and 7 were necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs and therefore must be answered, while interrogatory 8 served no litigious purpose and was disallowed; appeal dismissed as to Nos 5,6,7 and allowed as to No 8, with costs ordered nisi against the Third Party.

Citation
LEUNG PO PO AND ANOTHER v. OLYMPIC LEADER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Leung Po Po; Plaintiff: Cheng Kam Chau; 1st Defendant: Olympic Leader International Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ho Lin Wah; Third Party: QBE General Insurance (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Case Number
DCCJ5004/2013
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Action / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order on Interrogatories
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Agent Liability to Answer Interrogatories, Estoppel, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Agency Law Evidence Law Interrogatories Discovery Agent Liability to Answer Interrogatories Estoppel +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leung Po Po

Plaintiff

Cheng Kam Chau

Plaintiff

Olympic Leader International Limited

1st Defendant

Ho Lin Wah

2nd Defendant

QBE General Insurance (Hong Kong) Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Action / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Order on Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agent or servant of a party can be ordered to answer interrogatories under Order 26 Rule 3A of the Rules of the District Court
  2. 2 Whether the specific interrogatories were necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs (Order 26 Rule 1(2A))
  3. 3 Whether particular interrogatories sought factual admissions that would be obtainable at trial and therefore unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

Order 26 Rule 3A permits an agent of a party to be specified to answer interrogatories where that agent acted on the party's behalf; on the facts Toplis (through Mr Terence Cheng) was QBE's agent and the contested interrogatories 5, 6 and 7 were necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs and therefore must be answered, while interrogatory 8 served no litigious purpose and was disallowed; appeal dismissed as to Nos 5,6,7 and allowed as to No 8, with costs ordered nisi against the Third Party.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part

Orders

  • Interrogatories Nos 5, 6 and 7 are allowed and to be answered as specified (to be answered by Mr Terence Cheng as the agent of QBE/Toplis)
  • Interrogatory No 8 is disallowed