THE BARONESS DUNN v. DAVID LI KWOK-PO AND OTHERS

THE BARONESS DUNN v. DAVID LI KWOK-PO AND OTHERS

The court held that interrogatories served without leave under Ord.26 r.1(1) must be necessary for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs, and that 'necessary' should be interpreted as meaning necessary if any saving of costs is to be achieved; applying that test the interrogatories in these actions met the threshold and the appeals to withdraw them were dismissed.

Citation
THE BARONESS DUNN 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 Internationale'; 3rd Defendant: Patrick Wajsman; 4th Defendant: Serge Berthier
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 1994
Case Number
HCA5027/1993
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Decision on Interrogatories
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Master's decisions refusing to withdraw the interrogatories upheld.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Order 26 R.1, Necessity Standard, Saving Costs, Discovery Without Leave
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Interrogatories Order 26 R.1 Necessity Standard Saving 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Baroness Dunn

Plaintiff

Michael Thomas Q.C.

Plaintiff

David Li Kwok-po

1st Defendant

Societe Anonyme 'Politique Internationale'

2nd Defendant

Patrick Wajsman

3rd Defendant

Serge Berthier

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Decision on Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories served without leave under Order 26 r.1(1) must be shown to be 'necessary' to dispose fairly of the matter or to save costs before they can remain
  2. 2 How the word 'necessary' in r.1(1) should be interpreted in relation to savings of costs
  3. 3 Whether the specific interrogatory constituted an impermissible fishing expedition or required exhaustive memory search

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that interrogatories served without leave under Ord.26 r.1(1) must be necessary for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs, and that 'necessary' should be interpreted as meaning necessary if any saving of costs is to be achieved; applying that test the interrogatories in these actions met the threshold and the appeals to withdraw them were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Master's decisions refusing to withdraw the interrogatories upheld.

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiffs should have their costs against the 1st Defendant in any event.