WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS

WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS

The application for specific discovery was refused: documents relating to other large sites are a fishing expedition and not shown to be specifically relevant; even documents relating to the Hennessy Centre are at best marginally relevant and disclosure would be oppressive, not necessary for fair disposal or for saving costs, and risk prejudice by causing delay to trial.

Citation
WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
Parties
First Plaintiff: WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED; First Defendant: ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS); Other Defendants: OTHER DEFENDANTS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 April 1987
Case Number
HCA13431/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence (discovery Application) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7
Outcome
Application for specific discovery refused
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Order 24 Rule 7, Oppression in Discovery, Plot Ratio, Government Policy Circular, Limitation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Discovery Planning/land Use Law Specific Discovery Order 24 Rule 7 Oppression in Discovery Plot Ratio +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED

First Plaintiff

THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS)

First Defendant

OTHER DEFENDANTS

Other Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence (discovery Application) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to other large sites (1971–1983) are relevant to plaintiff's negligence claim
  2. 2 Whether the discovery sought is a fishing expedition or oppressive due to burden
  3. 3 Whether disclosure is necessary for the fair disposal of the case or for saving costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for specific discovery was refused: documents relating to other large sites are a fishing expedition and not shown to be specifically relevant; even documents relating to the Hennessy Centre are at best marginally relevant and disclosure would be oppressive, not necessary for fair disposal or for saving costs, and risk prejudice by causing delay to trial.

Court Disposition

Application for specific discovery refused

Orders

  • Application for specific discovery dismissed (no order for the documents sought)