SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Application refused because the proposed interrogatories were prolix and oppressive and constituted a fishing expedition into matters previously ruled irrelevant or privileged; they were unnecessary for a fair disposal or cost saving given the imminent trial and appropriate instead to be addressed by cross-examination, thereby justifying the exercise of the court's discretion to refuse leave.

Citation
SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA; 1st Defendant: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION; 2nd Defendant: CEHUNG MUI CHING FANNY; 3rd Defendant: HO CHOI WAI YEE ANGELA
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2008
Case Number
DCEO11/1999
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities / Employment Discrimination / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories at Pre Trial (application Heard 30 May 2008)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for leave to administer interrogatories dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Disclosure, Pre Trial Procedure, Legal Professional Privilege, Prolixity and Fishing Expeditions
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Privacy Law Interrogatories Disclosure Pre Trial Procedure Legal Professional Privilege +1 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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA

Plaintiff

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

1st Defendant

CEHUNG MUI CHING FANNY

2nd Defendant

HO CHOI WAI YEE ANGELA

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities / Employment Discrimination / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories at Pre Trial (application Heard 30 May 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to administer extensive interrogatories to individual defendants
  2. 2 Whether proposed interrogatories are relevant and necessary for disposing fairly or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether interrogatories are oppressive, prolix or a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused because the proposed interrogatories were prolix and oppressive and constituted a fishing expedition into matters previously ruled irrelevant or privileged; they were unnecessary for a fair disposal or cost saving given the imminent trial and appropriate instead to be addressed by cross-examination, thereby justifying the exercise of the court's discretion to refuse leave.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for leave to administer interrogatories dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to administer interrogatories against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants refused
  • No further interrogatories to be ordered (application dismissed)