ZENJOY LTD v. CONTEX GROUP CO., LTD

ZENJOY LTD v. CONTEX GROUP CO., LTD

The court dismissed the appeal: third party discovery was not necessary under Order 24 rule 8(2) because the defendant had not defended and the plaintiff could obtain default judgment so there were no live issues in the action such that discovery would dispose of the claim or save costs; the plaintiff failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2558
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant; Third Party: The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Case Number
HCA1339/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Discovery Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers (rehearing) / Appeal (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Discovery, Restraint Order, Mareva Injunction, Norwich Pharmacal Relief, Order 24 Rule 8(2) Necessity Test, Evidence Ordinance Section 42
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Discovery Injunctions Evidence Banking Law Trusts and Unjust Enrichment Third Party Discovery Restraint Order +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Discovery Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers (rehearing) / Appeal (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third party discovery under Evidence Ordinance s42/Order 24 is necessary where defendant has not defended
  2. 2 Whether documents are 'relevant to an issue arising out of the claim' when there are no live issues between plaintiff and defendant
  3. 3 Whether a restraint order of the type sought can be made against a non‑party bank

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the appeal: third party discovery was not necessary under Order 24 rule 8(2) because the defendant had not defended and the plaintiff could obtain default judgment so there were no live issues in the action such that discovery would dispose of the claim or save costs; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving necessity; the proposed restraint order could not be granted against a non‑party on the statutory basis relied upon.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs