CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS

The court held that the Re Fuld exception to litigation privilege is confined to documents containing the attesting witness's statements on attestation and execution; drafts and solicitor's attendance/interview/file notes remain privileged unless they themselves contain evidence on attestation/execution. Accordingly the summons was refused in part: translations (item 4), correspondence/enquiries and related documents (items 6 and 7) are privileged and not producible, while an affidavit must be filed about the existence of drafts and attendance/interview/file notes (items 3 and 5) but limited to such documents that contain evidence of attestation and execution, with liberty to claim...

Citation
CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 December 2008
Case Number
HCAP8/2007
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Interlocutory Chambers Application for Specific Discovery (summons of 3 November 2008)
Outcome
Application partly granted in limited form and partly refused
Legal Topics
Discovery, Litigation Privilege, Attesting Witnesses, Witness Statements, Translations, Court Inquisitorial Powers
Source Language
EN
Probate Civil Procedure Evidence Privilege Discovery Litigation Privilege Attesting Witnesses Witness Statements +2 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Interlocutory Chambers Application for Specific Discovery (summons of 3 November 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Re Fuld (No.2) exception to litigation privilege extends beyond statements on attestation and execution to drafts, attendance/interview/file notes, translations and correspondence
  2. 2 Whether an affidavit under Order 24 Rule 7 should be ordered about existence of the documents
  3. 3 Whether items 3–7 are protected by litigation privilege or subject to disclosure under the court's inquisitorial role

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Re Fuld exception to litigation privilege is confined to documents containing the attesting witness's statements on attestation and execution; drafts and solicitor's attendance/interview/file notes remain privileged unless they themselves contain evidence on attestation/execution. Accordingly the summons was refused in part: translations (item 4), correspondence/enquiries and related documents (items 6 and 7) are privileged and not producible, while an affidavit must be filed about the existence of drafts and attendance/interview/file notes (items 3 and 5) but limited to such documents that contain evidence of attestation and execution, with liberty to claim...

Court Disposition

Application partly granted in limited form and partly refused

Orders

  • Refuse production of item 4 (translations)
  • Refuse production of items 6 and 7 (correspondence, attendance notes and documents evidencing enquiries)