OKISHI LTD v. IVI DIGITAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

OKISHI LTD v. IVI DIGITAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

The interrogatories failed the necessity test under Order 26 because they were premature and amounted to a fishing expedition or a dry run of cross-examination prior to the exchange of witness statements; accordingly the plaintiff's interrogatories dated 24 April 2014 must be withdrawn and costs awarded to the defendants for summary assessment.

Citation
OKISHI LTD v. IVI DIGITAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: OKISHI LIMITED; 1st Defendant: IVI DIGITAL COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: LAM TAK HUNG; 3rd Defendant: CHO KWING SHUI, MICKEY; 4th Defendant: TSINGHUA TONGFANG CO LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Case Number
HCA798/2010
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim (breach of Sourcing Agreement; Commission) / Interlocutory Application to Vary/withdraw Interrogatories; Discovery Completed; Witness Statements Not Exchanged
Outcome
The plaintiff's interrogatories dated 24 April 2014 served on the 1st–4th defendants are withdrawn; order nisi for costs to the defendants with summary assessment directions.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Necessity Test, Fishing Expedition, Costs and Summary Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Disclosure and Discovery Interrogatories Necessity Test Fishing Expedition Costs and Summary Assessment

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

Parties

OKISHI LIMITED

Plaintiff

IVI DIGITAL COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

LAM TAK HUNG

2nd Defendant

CHO KWING SHUI, MICKEY

3rd Defendant

TSINGHUA TONGFANG CO LTD

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim (breach of Sourcing Agreement; Commission) / Interlocutory Application to Vary/withdraw Interrogatories; Discovery Completed; Witness Statements Not Exchanged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's interrogatories met the necessity test under Order 26
  2. 2 Whether interrogatories were premature prior to exchange of witness statements
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories amounted to an impermissible fishing exercise or dry run of cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories failed the necessity test under Order 26 because they were premature and amounted to a fishing expedition or a dry run of cross-examination prior to the exchange of witness statements; accordingly the plaintiff's interrogatories dated 24 April 2014 must be withdrawn and costs awarded to the defendants for summary assessment.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's interrogatories dated 24 April 2014 served on the 1st–4th defendants are withdrawn; order nisi for costs to the defendants with summary assessment directions.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's Interrogatories without Order dated 24 April 2014 served on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants be withdrawn.
  • There be an order nisi for costs of and occasioned by the defendants' Summons to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to be summarily assessed (with certificates for counsels) if not agreed.