LONG HAI HONG v. CHAN YU, LYDIA AND OTHERS

LONG HAI HONG v. CHAN YU, LYDIA AND OTHERS

The appeals were dismissed because the Category 2 requests did not specify documents with sufficient precision and, crucially, the documents sought did not relate to any matter in issue (they concerned only credit/credibility). Therefore there was no basis to order specific discovery under O.24 r.7; it was unnecessary to decide privilege issues.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2116
Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff: Long Hai Hong; 1st Respondent / 3rd Defendant: Chan Yu, Lydia; 2nd Respondent / 5th Defendant: A J K Company Limited; 3rd Respondent / 1st Defendant: Liu Dan; 2nd Defendant: Xing Zhirong; 4th Defendant: China Terry Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
HCMP3179/2013
Procedural Posture
Company Law – Rectification of Register of Members; Consolidated Civil Proceedings / Appeal Heard De Novo From Master; Judgment and Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Rectification of Register of Members, Legal Professional Privilege, Relevance and Credit, Order 24 R.7 Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Companies Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Discovery Law Specific Discovery Rectification of Register of Members Legal Professional Privilege Relevance and Credit +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Long Hai Hong

Applicant / Plaintiff

Chan Yu, Lydia

1st Respondent / 3rd Defendant

A J K Company Limited

2nd Respondent / 5th Defendant

Liu Dan

3rd Respondent / 1st Defendant

Xing Zhirong

2nd Defendant

China Terry Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Law – Rectification of Register of Members; Consolidated Civil Proceedings / Appeal Heard De Novo From Master; Judgment and Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Category 2 documents sought relate to a matter in issue such that specific discovery under O.24 r.7 can be ordered
  2. 2 Whether the discovery requests were specified with sufficient precision
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought relate solely to credit and therefore are not discoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the Category 2 requests did not specify documents with sufficient precision and, crucially, the documents sought did not relate to any matter in issue (they concerned only credit/credibility). Therefore there was no basis to order specific discovery under O.24 r.7; it was unnecessary to decide privilege issues.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Applicant/Plaintiff (Madam Long) to be paid by the Applying Parties, summarily assessed at HK$140,000