JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO. v. PIMATRONICS LTD

JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO. v. PIMATRONICS LTD

The appeal was dismissed because the discovery sought in Categories 1 and 2 was not relevant to the issues as defined by the pleadings and constituted an impermissible fishing exercise; Category 3 documents had been disclosed and no further discovery was necessary for fair disposal of the action.

Citation
JOYCE T. ONGSIP t/a LT ENTERPRISES CO. v. PIMATRONICS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff by Original Action: JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.; Defendant by Original Action: PIMATRONICS LIMITED; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: PIMATRONICS LIMITED; 1st Defendant by Counterclaim: LEE MAN HOI OCEAN; 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim: JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 September 2012
Case Number
HCA611/2010
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action and Counterclaim; Application for Specific Discovery / Appeal From Registrar's Dismissal of Summons Heard Before Deputy High Court Judge (reasons Given)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Relevance and Necessity of Discovery, Prima Facie Case for Discovery, Fishing Expedition, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Agency and Fiduciary Duty Anti‑corruption Law Specific Discovery Relevance and Necessity of Discovery Prima Facie Case for Discovery +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.

Plaintiff by Original Action

PIMATRONICS LIMITED

Defendant by Original Action

PIMATRONICS LIMITED

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

LEE MAN HOI OCEAN

1st Defendant by Counterclaim

JOYCE T. ONGSIP trading as LT ENTERPRISES CO.

2nd Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action and Counterclaim; Application for Specific Discovery / Appeal From Registrar's Dismissal of Summons Heard Before Deputy High Court Judge (reasons Given)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a prima facie case for specific discovery of the categories of documents sought
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought related to matters in question as defined by the pleadings
  3. 3 Whether discovery was necessary for fairly disposing of the cause or matter or for saving costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the discovery sought in Categories 1 and 2 was not relevant to the issues as defined by the pleadings and constituted an impermissible fishing exercise; Category 3 documents had been disclosed and no further discovery was necessary for fair disposal of the action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff; to be taxed if not agreed