EVAN P JOWERS AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT EMMETT KINNEY AND ANOTHER

EVAN P JOWERS AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT EMMETT KINNEY AND ANOTHER

Order 24 r.7 may be used before pleadings but the specific discovery sought was dismissed because it was unnecessary at this stage and impermissibly wide: plaintiffs had in their possession the primary emails enabling them to plead and made no prior attempt to obtain documents from identified third-party contacts, and the draft order sought would capture irrelevant and standard personnel communications; costs awarded to defendants HKD 165,642 with Certificate for Counsel.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2791
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Evan P Jowers; 2nd Plaintiff: Alejandro Vargas; 1st Defendant: Robert Emmett Kinney; 2nd Defendant: Kinney Recruiting Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 2019
Case Number
HCA826/2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation (writ With General Indorsement) / Pre Pleading Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 R.7 (before Service of Statement of Claim)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Pre Action Discovery, Order 24 Rule 7, Section 41 High Court Ordinance, Pleading Requirements in Defamation, Multiple Publication Rule
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Defamation Discovery Costs Abuse of Process Specific Discovery Pre Action Discovery Order 24 Rule 7 +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evan P Jowers

1st Plaintiff

Alejandro Vargas

2nd Plaintiff

Robert Emmett Kinney

1st Defendant

Kinney Recruiting Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (writ With General Indorsement) / Pre Pleading Application for Specific Discovery Under Order 24 R.7 (before Service of Statement of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 24 r.7 may be used to obtain specific discovery prior to service of pleadings
  2. 2 Whether invoking Order 24 r.7 instead of S.41 HCO constitutes abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the discovery sought was necessary for fair disposal or saving costs

Ratio Decidendi

Order 24 r.7 may be used before pleadings but the specific discovery sought was dismissed because it was unnecessary at this stage and impermissibly wide: plaintiffs had in their possession the primary emails enabling them to plead and made no prior attempt to obtain documents from identified third-party contacts, and the draft order sought would capture irrelevant and standard personnel communications; costs awarded to defendants HKD 165,642 with Certificate for Counsel.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the summons, summarily assessed at HKD 165642, forthwith