MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS

MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS

Given the late stage of the O.67 r.6 application, the applicant's disclosure of correspondence relating to the adjournment request (thereby waiving privilege over that subject matter), the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff and impact on trial dates, and binding authority that affidavits under O.67 r.6 are not privileged once before the court, the judge exercised his discretion to permit the Plaintiff access to the affirmation and to be heard on the application; any genuinely confidential material not relevant to the adjournment may be edited after submissions.

Citation
MAN FONG HANG v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Man Leung; Defendant: Other Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2003
Case Number
HCA7935/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Day of Trial / Pre Trial Applications (ruling on Cease to Act and Adjournment Applications)
Outcome
Court granted Plaintiff access to the affirmation filed in support of the O.67 r.6 application, granted the Plaintiff leave to be heard on that application, and directed that the cease to act and adjournment applications be heard together; editing of any confidential material would be considered.
Legal Topics
Cease to Act Application, Order 67 Rule 6, Adjournment, Privilege Waiver, Leave to Inspect Affidavit
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Solicitor Client Privilege Court Discretion Cease to Act Application Order 67 Rule 6 Adjournment Privilege Waiver Leave to Inspect Affidavit

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Man Leung

Defendant

Other Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Day of Trial / Pre Trial Applications (ruling on Cease to Act and Adjournment Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant access to the affirmation filed under O.67 r.6 and allow the Plaintiff to be heard in that application
  2. 2 Whether solicitor-client privilege over correspondence is waived by a client's disclosure of parts of that correspondence
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to justify disclosure of solicitor-client material and participation by the adversary in a cease to act application

Ratio Decidendi

Given the late stage of the O.67 r.6 application, the applicant's disclosure of correspondence relating to the adjournment request (thereby waiving privilege over that subject matter), the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff and impact on trial dates, and binding authority that affidavits under O.67 r.6 are not privileged once before the court, the judge exercised his discretion to permit the Plaintiff access to the affirmation and to be heard on the application; any genuinely confidential material not relevant to the adjournment may be edited after submissions.

Court Disposition

Court granted Plaintiff access to the affirmation filed in support of the O.67 r.6 application, granted the Plaintiff leave to be heard on that application, and directed that the cease to act and adjournment applications be heard together; editing of any confidential material would be considered.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted access to the affirmation filed in support of the O.67 r.6 application
  • Plaintiff granted leave to address the court in the O.67 r.6 application