LIU HING SANG v. ESTATE OF LI KWAN, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

LIU HING SANG v. ESTATE OF LI KWAN, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

The court ordered disclosure only of the Unopposed Documents and confirmation of non-existence of certain documents, but dismissed the application for the broad disclosure sought under Classes 2 and 4-6 because those classes were either irrelevant to the issues (Mr Liu's prospects with Miramar and freelance work), too wide, invaded third‑party personal/confidential information and were not necessary for fairly disposing of the matter or saving costs.

Citation
LIU HING SANG v. ESTATE OF LI KWAN, DECEASED AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: LIU HING SANG; 1st Defendant: ESTATE OF LI KWAN, DECEASED; 2nd Defendant: TARGET INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Case Number
HCPI665/2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory (non Party Discovery Hearing)
Outcome
Summons partially granted in respect of specified Unopposed Documents and dismissed in all other respects
Legal Topics
Non Party Discovery, Relevance and Necessity, Confidentiality of Documents, Assessment of Damages Loss of Earnings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Evidence & Disclosure Non Party Discovery Relevance and Necessity Confidentiality of Documents Assessment of Damages Loss of Earnings

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIU HING SANG

Plaintiff

ESTATE OF LI KWAN, DECEASED

1st Defendant

TARGET INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory (non Party Discovery Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hong Thai was likely to have relevant documents in its possession, custody or power
  2. 2 Whether documents sought (Classes 2 and 4-6) met the Peruvian Guano relevance test
  3. 3 Whether non-party discovery was necessary for fairly disposing of the cause or for saving costs under Order 24 r 8(2) RHC

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered disclosure only of the Unopposed Documents and confirmation of non-existence of certain documents, but dismissed the application for the broad disclosure sought under Classes 2 and 4-6 because those classes were either irrelevant to the issues (Mr Liu's prospects with Miramar and freelance work), too wide, invaded third‑party personal/confidential information and were not necessary for fairly disposing of the matter or saving costs.

Court Disposition

Summons partially granted in respect of specified Unopposed Documents and dismissed in all other respects

Orders

  • Hong Thai to file and serve within 28 days an affidavit confirming possession of Unopposed Documents, itemising them, and confirming non‑possession of Non‑existent Documents
  • Hong Thai to produce the Unopposed Documents for inspection and permit copying within 7 days after filing the affidavit