WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

D2 failed to establish the required prima facie case that the specific classes of documents existed and were in the plaintiffs' possession or that they were relevant and necessary to the fair disposal of the actions; the discovery applications were speculative/fishing and refused; D2 also failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary fixed trial dates under the CJR and Rules and the adjournment applications were refused; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Citation
WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: William Thomson; Plaintiff: Hans-Juergen Boewe; 1st Defendant: Roland John Jeans; 2nd Defendant: Tanner De Witt (a firm)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Case Number
DCCJ3388/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Recovery of Investments and Related Equitable Claims / Interlocutory Hearing on Specific Discovery and Adjournment Applications (pre Trial)
Outcome
All of D2's interlocutory applications (specific discovery and adjournment) dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Adjournment/milestone Dates, Failure of Consideration, Money Had and Received, Conversion, Breach of Trust, Security for Costs, Amendment of Defence, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Trusts and Equity Contract Specific Discovery Adjournment/milestone Dates Failure of Consideration Money Had and Received +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomson

Plaintiff

Hans-Juergen Boewe

Plaintiff

Roland John Jeans

1st Defendant

Tanner De Witt (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Recovery of Investments and Related Equitable Claims / Interlocutory Hearing on Specific Discovery and Adjournment Applications (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the classes of documents sought by D2 existed and were in the plaintiffs' possession, custody or power
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought were relevant to matters in question and necessary for fair disposal or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether D2 demonstrated 'exceptional circumstances' to vary fixed trial/milestone dates under the CJR and the Rules

Ratio Decidendi

D2 failed to establish the required prima facie case that the specific classes of documents existed and were in the plaintiffs' possession or that they were relevant and necessary to the fair disposal of the actions; the discovery applications were speculative/fishing and refused; D2 also failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary fixed trial dates under the CJR and Rules and the adjournment applications were refused; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

All of D2's interlocutory applications (specific discovery and adjournment) dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Discovery applications by 2nd Defendant dismissed
  • Adjournment applications by 2nd Defendant dismissed