MICHAEL THOMAS Q.C. v. DAVID LI KWOK-PO AND OTHERS

MICHAEL THOMAS Q.C. v. DAVID LI KWOK-PO AND OTHERS

Ord.26 r.1 must be read to require that interrogatories served without order be necessary either to dispose fairly of the matter or necessary if any saving of costs is to be achieved; applying that test the interrogatories in these actions met the threshold and the appeals against the Master's refusal to withdraw them were dismissed.

Citation
MICHAEL THOMAS Q.C. v. DAVID LI KWOK-PO AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: THE BARONESS DUNN; Plaintiff: MICHAEL THOMAS Q.C.; 1st Defendant: DAVID LI KWOK-PO; 2nd Defendant: SOCIETE ANONYME 'POLITIQUE INTER NATIONALE'; 3rd Defendant: PATRICK WAJSMAN; 4th Defendant: SERGE BERTHIER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 1994
Case Number
HCA5862/1993
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Refusal to Withdraw Interrogatory (heard in Chambers Before Barnett J.)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; Master decisions upheld.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Order 26 R.1, Necessity Test for Discovery, Costs, Leave to Serve Interrogatories
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Defamation Evidence Discovery Interrogatories Order 26 R.1 Necessity Test for Discovery Costs +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BARONESS DUNN

Plaintiff

MICHAEL THOMAS Q.C.

Plaintiff

DAVID LI KWOK-PO

1st Defendant

SOCIETE ANONYME 'POLITIQUE INTER NATIONALE'

2nd Defendant

PATRICK WAJSMAN

3rd Defendant

SERGE BERTHIER

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Refusal to Withdraw Interrogatory (heard in Chambers Before Barnett J.)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories served without order under Ord.26 r.1 must be shown to be 'necessary' to dispose fairly of the cause or to save costs before they are valid
  2. 2 How the word 'necessary' in Ord.26 r.1 should be interpreted with respect to saving costs
  3. 3 Whether the specific interrogatories in these actions satisfy the Ord.26 r.1 threshold

Ratio Decidendi

Ord.26 r.1 must be read to require that interrogatories served without order be necessary either to dispose fairly of the matter or necessary if any saving of costs is to be achieved; applying that test the interrogatories in these actions met the threshold and the appeals against the Master's refusal to withdraw them were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; Master decisions upheld.

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed.
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiffs shall have their costs against the 1st Defendant in any event.