LI ZHONG v. TO CHI KO AND OTHERS

LI ZHONG v. TO CHI KO AND OTHERS

The court held that the application for specific discovery was governed by the District Court rules as applied by ECO s21(1), so appeals from such interlocutory orders require leave under DCO s63; the judge properly exercised discretion under O.24 r.8 to refuse specific discovery of the remaining documents and the appellant lacked a reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
LI ZHONG v. TO CHI KO AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Li; 1st Respondent: To; 2nd Respondent: Hung; 3rd Respondent: Richman Properties
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Case Number
DCEC595/2008
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Application for Specific Discovery; Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation, Specific Discovery, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Appeal Discovery Employees Compensation Specific Discovery Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li

Applicant

To

1st Respondent

Hung

2nd Respondent

Richman Properties

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Application for Specific Discovery; Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal is required from an order for specific discovery in an employees compensation proceeding
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in refusing specific discovery of corporate shareholder and director registers
  3. 3 Proper construction and interaction of Employees Compensation Ordinance s23 and District Court Ordinance s63 and application of s21(1) ECO

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for specific discovery was governed by the District Court rules as applied by ECO s21(1), so appeals from such interlocutory orders require leave under DCO s63; the judge properly exercised discretion under O.24 r.8 to refuse specific discovery of the remaining documents and the appellant lacked a reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • Costs of this application to Hung and Richman Properties in any event to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel