LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KOK AND ANOTHER

LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KOK AND ANOTHER

The 2nd defendant's unequivocal second affirmation denying possession, custody or control of the alleged documents is conclusive; therefore no order for specific discovery or consequential directions should be made, and the summons is to be dismissed with costs apportioned according to the stages identified by the court.

Citation
LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KOK AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (claims to Be Adopted Daughter): Plaintiff; Respondent (claims Lawful Husband and Competing Claimant to Estate): 1st Defendant; Respondent (guardian/defendant Alleged to Have Removed Items From Joint Safety Box): 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 January 2011
Case Number
HCAP3/2008
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration Dispute; Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery / Hearing on Summons (interlocutory Application)
Outcome
No order for specific discovery; plaintiff's summons dismissed as to relief sought; consequential directions refused.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Safe Deposit/safety Box, Adoption Status Dispute, Costs Allocation
Source Language
EN
Probate and Administration Mental Health/guardianship Civil Procedure Evidence (discovery) Specific Discovery Safe Deposit/safety Box Adoption Status Dispute Costs Allocation

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

Plaintiff

Applicant (claims to Be Adopted Daughter)

1st Defendant

Respondent (claims Lawful Husband and Competing Claimant to Estate)

2nd Defendant

Respondent (guardian/defendant Alleged to Have Removed Items From Joint Safety Box)

Procedural Posture

Probate and Administration Dispute; Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery / Hearing on Summons (interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant must be compelled to give specific discovery of documents/photographs/chattels from the joint safety box
  2. 2 Whether consequential directions (further witness statements or orders) should be made
  3. 3 Allocation of costs arising from the summons

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd defendant's unequivocal second affirmation denying possession, custody or control of the alleged documents is conclusive; therefore no order for specific discovery or consequential directions should be made, and the summons is to be dismissed with costs apportioned according to the stages identified by the court.

Court Disposition

No order for specific discovery; plaintiff's summons dismissed as to relief sought; consequential directions refused.

Orders

  • No order on the plaintiff's summons
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of the summons before and up to 2 August 2010