PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. DELAY, GILDA H. AND ANOTHER

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. DELAY, GILDA H. AND ANOTHER

The summonses were dismissed because the applications were made late with inadequate explanations for the delay, the sought documents were not relevant to the defendant's pleaded defence (which disputed only the dates, not the existence or contents of the promissory notes), and there was insufficient merit to justify ordering production; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 1735
Parties
Plaintiff in DCCJ 3298/2018 and DCCJ 3299/2018: Pacific Ace Finance Limited; 1st Defendant in DCCJ 3298/2018 and 2nd Defendant in DCCJ 3299/2018: Delay, Gilda H.; 2nd Defendant in DCCJ 3298/2018 and 1st Defendant in DCCJ 3299/2018: Villasfer, Andrenee M.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 October 2024
Case Number
DCCJ3298/2018
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Action / Pre Trial (ptr) Interlocutory Summons for Production of Documents Under S47 B(1) DCO and O 24 R 7 a
Outcome
Summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Late Application, Relevance of Evidence, Forgery Allegation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Debt Recovery Immigration Records Production of Documents Late Application Relevance of Evidence +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Ace Finance Limited

Plaintiff in DCCJ 3298/2018 and DCCJ 3299/2018

Delay, Gilda H.

1st Defendant in DCCJ 3298/2018 and 2nd Defendant in DCCJ 3299/2018

Villasfer, Andrenee M.

2nd Defendant in DCCJ 3298/2018 and 1st Defendant in DCCJ 3299/2018

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Action / Pre Trial (ptr) Interlocutory Summons for Production of Documents Under S47 B(1) DCO and O 24 R 7 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late summonses for production of travel records and contact details should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the travel records and contact details sought are relevant to the defendant's pleaded defences alleging forged or false dates
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses were dismissed because the applications were made late with inadequate explanations for the delay, the sought documents were not relevant to the defendant's pleaded defence (which disputed only the dates, not the existence or contents of the promissory notes), and there was insufficient merit to justify ordering production; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Summonses dismissed

Orders

  • Summons in DCCJ 3298/2018 dismissed
  • Summons in DCCJ 3299/2018 dismissed