LEITCH ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. MACOSTAR TECHNOLOGY LTD

LEITCH ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. MACOSTAR TECHNOLOGY LTD

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to identify specific documents or show that the extensive categories sought existed and were relevant; the application amounted to a fishing expedition and the Master did not err in limiting discovery.

Citation
LEITCH ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. MACOSTAR TECHNOLOGY LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Leitch Asia Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Leitch Technology International Inc.; Defendant: Macostar Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2006
Case Number
HCA1008/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Contractual Dispute (dealership/accounting) / Interlocutory Discovery Appeal (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Exclusive Dealership Agreement, Accounting and Set Off, Breach of Contract, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Commercial Law Evidence Discovery Exclusive Dealership Agreement Accounting and Set Off Breach of Contract +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leitch Asia Limited

1st Plaintiff

Leitch Technology International Inc.

2nd Plaintiff

Macostar Technology Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contractual Dispute (dealership/accounting) / Interlocutory Discovery Appeal (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether broad discovery for invoices/shipping documents from 1997-2000 should be ordered
  2. 2 Whether applicant showed specific documents exist and are relevant to pleaded issues
  3. 3 Whether alleged breaches were sufficiently pleaded and particularised to justify discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to identify specific documents or show that the extensive categories sought existed and were relevant; the application amounted to a fishing expedition and the Master did not err in limiting discovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No further discovery ordered beyond the Master's limited order