SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Court held it had jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 17(2)(ii), applied the Conway v. Rimmer balancing test to weigh public interest against plaintiffs' need, and ordered partial disclosure: routine seizure particulars, accounts and records that would have been obtainable by Anton Piller orders, particulars of seizures, names and addresses of persons arrested or from whom goods were seized, and seized documents where custodians consent, while protecting witness statements and materials relating to other manufacturers; the order was stayed pending appeal and liberty to apply was granted.

Citation
SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Parties
1st Plaintiff: SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA (also known as SONY CORPORATION); 2nd Plaintiff: SONY CORPORATION OF HONG KONG LIMITED; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 1983
Case Number
HCMP987/1983
Procedural Posture
High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings / Application for Disclosure Under Section 17 (judgment on Interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Order for partial disclosure under section 17(2)(ii) authorising and requiring the Commissioner to disclose specified material subject to protections; stay of the order pending appeal; liberty to apply; no order for costs; order excluded material relating to other manufacturers.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Seized Documents, Section 17 Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Balancing Public Interest Vs Private Litigation, Anton Piller Orders, Conway V. Rimmer Test
Source Language
EN
Trade Descriptions Administrative Law Evidence Civil Procedure Public Interest Immunity Disclosure of Seized Documents Section 17 Trade Descriptions Ordinance Balancing Public Interest Vs Private Litigation +2 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA (also known as SONY CORPORATION)

1st Plaintiff

SONY CORPORATION OF HONG KONG LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings / Application for Disclosure Under Section 17 (judgment on Interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 17(2)(ii) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance
  2. 2 What is the appropriate test for ordering disclosure of material held by a public officer and how to balance public interest against litigant's need
  3. 3 What categories of seized material should be disclosed and what should remain protected (eg witness statements, third party manufacturers)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it had jurisdiction to order disclosure under section 17(2)(ii), applied the Conway v. Rimmer balancing test to weigh public interest against plaintiffs' need, and ordered partial disclosure: routine seizure particulars, accounts and records that would have been obtainable by Anton Piller orders, particulars of seizures, names and addresses of persons arrested or from whom goods were seized, and seized documents where custodians consent, while protecting witness statements and materials relating to other manufacturers; the order was stayed pending appeal and liberty to apply was granted.

Court Disposition

Order for partial disclosure under section 17(2)(ii) authorising and requiring the Commissioner to disclose specified material subject to protections; stay of the order pending appeal; liberty to apply; no order for costs; order excluded material relating to other manufacturers.

Orders

  • Order authorising and requiring the Commissioner to disclose details of goods seized
  • Order requiring disclosure of date and place of seizure and accounts of what transpired to the extent not dependent on witness statements or seized documents