ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. and Others v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. and Others

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. and Others v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. and Others

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the defendants failed to show that the documents or classes sought were sufficiently connected to matters in question; the affidavit was not specific as to relevance, the application risked being a fishing expedition, and potential use of documents solely to attack credibility did not justify the broad discovery sought.

Citation
ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. and Others v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. and Others
Parties
First Plaintiff: ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: EASTERN EXPRESS PUBLISHER LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: MA CHING KWAN; First Defendant: NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED; Second Defendant: CHEUNG KIM HUNG; Third Defendant: TOPPAN PRINTING COMPANY (HK) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 1998
Case Number
HCA12525/1994
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24, Rule 7 (in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Relevance of Documents, Fishing Expedition, Fair Comment, Justification, Order 24 Rule 7
Source Language
EN
Civil Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Specific Discovery Relevance of Documents Fishing Expedition +3 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED

First Plaintiff

EASTERN EXPRESS PUBLISHER LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

MA CHING KWAN

Third Plaintiff

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED

First Defendant

CHEUNG KIM HUNG

Second Defendant

TOPPAN PRINTING COMPANY (HK) LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24, Rule 7 (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants established that the specific documents or classes of documents related to a matter in question so as to justify discovery under Order 24, rule 7
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support sufficiently identified which documents related to which matters in question
  3. 3 Whether discovery could be ordered where the only conceivable use of documents was to challenge credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the defendants failed to show that the documents or classes sought were sufficiently connected to matters in question; the affidavit was not specific as to relevance, the application risked being a fishing expedition, and potential use of documents solely to attack credibility did not justify the broad discovery sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Application for specific discovery dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs