CHAN SHU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. DR KUNG YAN SUM AND OTHERS

CHAN SHU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. DR KUNG YAN SUM AND OTHERS

The Master was correct: no specific issued 'Statement of Travel Records' existed in the 1st Defendant's possession, custody or power at the date of the Summons; the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance does not convert accessible personal data held by a third party into a discoverable document under Order 24; and even if the Statement were obtainable it was not necessary or proportionate to order discovery because it had limited probative value regarding the disputed Shanghai trip. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 360
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff; Co‑plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff; Respondent/1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; Co‑defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Case Number
HCA832/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Discovery (fraud/deceit/conspiracy) / Appeal From Master to Court of First Instance (decision on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Personal Data, Order 24 Rule 7 RHC, Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance, Necessity for Discovery, Prima Facie Existence of Document
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Privacy Law Data Protection Fraud Specific Discovery Personal Data Order 24 Rule 7 RHC +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Plaintiff

Applicant/plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff

Co‑plaintiff

1st Defendant

Respondent/1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

Co‑defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Discovery (fraud/deceit/conspiracy) / Appeal From Master to Court of First Instance (decision on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the specified 'Statement of Travel Records' existed as a document for discovery at the date of the Summons
  2. 2 Whether personal data held by a third party (Immigration Department) and obtainable under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance places the document within a party's 'possession, custody or power' for discovery
  3. 3 Whether the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance was intended to or does extend discovery rights in civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was correct: no specific issued 'Statement of Travel Records' existed in the 1st Defendant's possession, custody or power at the date of the Summons; the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance does not convert accessible personal data held by a third party into a discoverable document under Order 24; and even if the Statement were obtainable it was not necessary or proportionate to order discovery because it had limited probative value regarding the disputed Shanghai trip. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Defendant