WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHENG WAI KONG AND OTHERS

WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHENG WAI KONG AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal refused because the adjudicator applied correct legal principles for discovery, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case as to existence, possession and relevance for the specified classes, several requests lacked specificity and amounted to fishing, and the alleged duties of care against the individual employees were legally dubious; no error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was shown.

Citation
WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHENG WAI KONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Wallbanck Brothers Securities (Hong Kong) Limited; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Cheng Wai Kong; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Aaron Yim; 5th Defendant/respondent: Ricoh Hong Kong Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Case Number
HCSA38/2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (on Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Duty of Care, Leave to Appeal, Tribunal Investigation, Vicarious Liability, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Negligence Contract Tribunal Practice Specific Discovery Duty of Care Leave to Appeal +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wallbanck Brothers Securities (Hong Kong) Limited

Applicant/claimant

Cheng Wai Kong

2nd Defendant/respondent

Aaron Yim

3rd Defendant/respondent

Ricoh Hong Kong Limited

5th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (on Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal) / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery of classes 12-20 and 22 should have been ordered
  2. 2 Whether duty of care claims against individual employees (D2,D3) raised subjective elements relevant to discovery
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed in his duty to investigate by requiring specificity and evidence of possession and relevance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the adjudicator applied correct legal principles for discovery, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case as to existence, possession and relevance for the specified classes, several requests lacked specificity and amounted to fishing, and the alleged duties of care against the individual employees were legally dubious; no error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was shown.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed