TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that the documents sought were relevant to the pleaded allegation that demolition‑related poles were negligently installed and that such documents likely existed; because earlier identification would promote cost savings and fair disposal, specific discovery in the terms of the summons was ordered and costs were awarded against the 3rd defendant for unjustified refusal without seeking clarification.

Citation
TONG TAK MAN v. YUEN CHEONG FIRE ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: HANG FOONG M & E CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: NEW CITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2008
Case Number
HCPI775/2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Discovery Application in a Civil Personal Injury Matter / Chambers Hearing (summons for Specific Discovery)
Outcome
Summons for specific discovery allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Negligence, Building Regulation Compliance, Inspection Records, Safety Briefings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Construction Law Evidence Specific Discovery Negligence Building Regulation Compliance Inspection Records +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

HANG FOONG M & E CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

NEW CITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Discovery Application in a Civil Personal Injury Matter / Chambers Hearing (summons for Specific Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents sought are relevant to pleaded issues of negligent installation during demolition
  2. 2 Whether the application is a fishing expedition
  3. 3 Whether the documents requested are necessary for saving costs and fair disposal of the cause

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the documents sought were relevant to the pleaded allegation that demolition‑related poles were negligently installed and that such documents likely existed; because earlier identification would promote cost savings and fair disposal, specific discovery in the terms of the summons was ordered and costs were awarded against the 3rd defendant for unjustified refusal without seeking clarification.

Court Disposition

Summons for specific discovery allowed

Orders

  • Application for specific discovery allowed in terms of the summons (documents described in items (a)–(j) to be disclosed by the 3rd defendant)
  • Costs ordered against the 3rd defendant for resisting the application without seeking clarification