HANS-JUERGEN BOEWE v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

HANS-JUERGEN BOEWE v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

The court dismissed the specific discovery applications because D2 failed to establish a prima facie case of existence and relevance of the specified classes of documents and the requests amounted to a fishing expedition; the adjournment applications were dismissed because D2 failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary milestone trial dates, its unreadiness resulted from its own case management, plaintiffs were ready and would be prejudiced; costs were ordered against D2.

Citation
HANS-JUERGEN BOEWE 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
DCCJ3389/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (district Court) / Interlocutory Applications Decided; Pre Trial Stage
Outcome
All applications by the 2nd Defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Adjournment of Trial / Variation of Milestone Dates, Failure of Consideration, Money Had and Received, Conversion, Security for Costs, Costs and Summary Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Contract and Restitution Specific Discovery Adjournment of Trial / Variation of Milestone Dates Failure of Consideration Money Had and Received +3 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 15 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 (district Court) / Interlocutory Applications Decided; Pre Trial Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the specified classes of documents existed and were in plaintiffs' possession, custody or power
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary for fair disposal or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether the discovery applications were permissible or amounted to a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the specific discovery applications because D2 failed to establish a prima facie case of existence and relevance of the specified classes of documents and the requests amounted to a fishing expedition; the adjournment applications were dismissed because D2 failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary milestone trial dates, its unreadiness resulted from its own case management, plaintiffs were ready and would be prejudiced; costs were ordered against D2.

Court Disposition

All applications by the 2nd Defendant dismissed

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs for the discovery and adjournment applications with counsel certificate
  • Costs were summary assessed and to be paid forthwith by the 2nd Defendant