LI LIHONG v. CHOI TUNG CHI AND ANOTHER

LI LIHONG v. CHOI TUNG CHI AND ANOTHER

The court held that documents in the Family Court evidencing Madam Choi’s alleged intention to relocate to the US were not relevant to the pleaded proprietary issues and therefore not necessary for fair disposal or cost-saving; documents evidencing independent financial means (excluding gifts) were also not necessary because the pleaded facts established substantial cash gifts from Mr An and a gift recipient’s use of gifted funds can constitute detrimental reliance; consequently the application for specific discovery was allowed only by consent in respect of Classes 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 and Class 1 of Schedule 2, the defendants must provide a further and better list and verification, and...

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2344
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Li Lihong; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Choi Tung Chi; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Cheung Ming Wah; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): David An
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2018
Case Number
HCA3310/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Proprietary Dispute Beneficial Ownership of Land / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery (order 24)
Outcome
Summons dated 29 June 2018 allowed in part and dismissed in part; consent order for specific discovery in limited classes; remainder dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Resulting Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Implied Undertaking (family Proceedings), Relevance and Peruvian Guano Test
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Family Law Specific Discovery Resulting Trust Proprietary Estoppel Implied Undertaking (family Proceedings) +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Lihong

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Choi Tung Chi

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Cheung Ming Wah

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

David An

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Proprietary Dispute Beneficial Ownership of Land / Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery (order 24)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the classes of documents in Schedules 1 and 2 are discoverable under Order 24
  2. 2 Whether family court documents evidencing intention to relocate are relevant to the proprietary/gift issues
  3. 3 Whether evidence of defendants' independent financial means (excluding cash gifts) is relevant to detrimental reliance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that documents in the Family Court evidencing Madam Choi’s alleged intention to relocate to the US were not relevant to the pleaded proprietary issues and therefore not necessary for fair disposal or cost-saving; documents evidencing independent financial means (excluding gifts) were also not necessary because the pleaded facts established substantial cash gifts from Mr An and a gift recipient’s use of gifted funds can constitute detrimental reliance; consequently the application for specific discovery was allowed only by consent in respect of Classes 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 and Class 1 of Schedule 2, the defendants must provide a further and better list and verification, and...

Court Disposition

Summons dated 29 June 2018 allowed in part and dismissed in part; consent order for specific discovery in limited classes; remainder dismissed.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the Summons dated 29 June 2018 allowed
  • By consent, specific discovery ordered for Classes 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 and Class 1 of Schedule 2