WONG SAI PONG v. WONG KIM BOR

WONG SAI PONG v. WONG KIM BOR

The application for specific discovery was dismissed because the documents sought were no longer in the possession, custody or power of the plaintiff or Tecco Investment Ltd, discovery was unnecessary for fairly disposing of the matter given existing evidence (Water Supplies Department letter confirming water supply date), and the wide-ranging, late application would cause undue delay and was disproportionate to case management objectives; costs ordered to the plaintiff.

Citation
WONG SAI PONG v. WONG KIM BOR
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counterclaim): Wong Sai Pong; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Wong Kim Bor; 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim): Tecco Investment Limited; Defendant (by Counterclaim): Chan Choi Shing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Case Number
HCA390/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application in Contract/property Sale Dispute (specific Discovery) / Interlocutory/application for Specific Discovery Before Trial (o24 R.7 Rhc)
Outcome
Application for specific discovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Implied Term, Water Supply, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Property Specific Discovery Implied Term Water Supply Case Management Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Sai Pong

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Wong Kim Bor

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Tecco Investment Limited

1st Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Chan Choi Shing

Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Application in Contract/property Sale Dispute (specific Discovery) / Interlocutory/application for Specific Discovery Before Trial (o24 R.7 Rhc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an implied term that the property would be fit for occupation with supply of water and electricity prior to completion
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to wide-ranging specific discovery from the plaintiff and third parties (Water Supplies Department)
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are in the possession, custody or power of the plaintiff or agents

Ratio Decidendi

The application for specific discovery was dismissed because the documents sought were no longer in the possession, custody or power of the plaintiff or Tecco Investment Ltd, discovery was unnecessary for fairly disposing of the matter given existing evidence (Water Supplies Department letter confirming water supply date), and the wide-ranging, late application would cause undue delay and was disproportionate to case management objectives; costs ordered to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for specific discovery dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of the application to the plaintiff, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.