SIOW CHON HENG v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD

SIOW CHON HENG v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD

Discovery of Class A and Class C documents was ordered because there was a prima facie case of their existence, they related directly to disputed issues (knowledge of relationships/appointment and quantum of commissions) and their discovery was necessary at least to save costs; discovery of Class B earlier employer returns was refused because returns already disclosed for 1996–2001 were sufficient and earlier returns would add nothing but costs.

Citation
SIOW CHON HENG v. SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff in HCA 3710; Defendant in HCA 3992 and HCA 5370: SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LIMITED; 1st Defendant in HCA 3710; Plaintiff in HCA 5370: YIP KWOK FAI; 2nd Defendant in HCA 3710: TSUI HUNG FEI; 3rd Defendant in HCA 3710; Plaintiff in HCA 3992: SIOW CHON HENG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2003
Case Number
HCA3992/2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Specific Discovery / Decision on Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Order 24 Rule 7, Prima Facie Documentary Evidence, Document Disclosure, Commission Disputes, Restitution
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Agency Insurance Law Tax Law Contract Specific Discovery Order 24 Rule 7 +4 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

SIME INSURANCE BROKERS (HK) LIMITED

Plaintiff in HCA 3710; Defendant in HCA 3992 and HCA 5370

YIP KWOK FAI

1st Defendant in HCA 3710; Plaintiff in HCA 5370

TSUI HUNG FEI

2nd Defendant in HCA 3710

SIOW CHON HENG

3rd Defendant in HCA 3710; Plaintiff in HCA 3992

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Specific Discovery / Decision on Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific documents (Class A, B, C) exist and should be discovered
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought relate to matters in question (knowledge of relationships and appointment of sub-agent, and quantum of commission)
  3. 3 Whether discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery of Class A and Class C documents was ordered because there was a prima facie case of their existence, they related directly to disputed issues (knowledge of relationships/appointment and quantum of commissions) and their discovery was necessary at least to save costs; discovery of Class B earlier employer returns was refused because returns already disclosed for 1996–2001 were sufficient and earlier returns would add nothing but costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Discovery ordered of Class A Documents (Plaintiff's records relating to approval of AIC's appointment)
  • Discovery ordered of Class C Documents (written documents submitted by Plaintiff to Inland Revenue Department regarding commissions earned by 2nd Defendant through AIC)