YUEN MING TUNG v. MAN LAU CHUEN AND ANOTHER

YUEN MING TUNG v. MAN LAU CHUEN AND ANOTHER

The court found the plaintiff's original interrogatory answers were insufficient and the defendants' further interrogatories were relevant and necessary for assessing quantum; the defendants satisfied the prima facie threshold for specific discovery (existence, relevance, possession/power); accordingly the court ordered the Further Interrogatories specified in the summons to be served and answered on oath and ordered the specific discovery sought; costs were awarded to reflect plaintiff's unreasonable refusals, including indemnity costs for items unreasonably withheld to be summarily assessed.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 1190
Parties
Plaintiff: YUEN MING TUNG; 1st Defendant: MAN LAU CHUEN; 2nd Defendant: MING WAI PUBLIC LIGHT BUS LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
DCPI2626/2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Summons for Further Interrogatories and Specific Discovery
Outcome
Order in terms of the summons: Further Interrogatories and Specific Discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to answer on oath; costs awarded
Legal Topics
Further Interrogatories, Specific Discovery, Disclosure Compliance, Summary Assessment of Costs, Mitigation of Loss
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Discovery Costs Further Interrogatories Specific Discovery Disclosure Compliance Summary Assessment of 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YUEN MING TUNG

Plaintiff

MAN LAU CHUEN

1st Defendant

MING WAI PUBLIC LIGHT BUS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Summons for Further Interrogatories and Specific Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to serve further interrogatories
  2. 2 Whether specific discovery prerequisites (existence, relevance, possession) are met
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's prior interrogatory answers were insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's original interrogatory answers were insufficient and the defendants' further interrogatories were relevant and necessary for assessing quantum; the defendants satisfied the prima facie threshold for specific discovery (existence, relevance, possession/power); accordingly the court ordered the Further Interrogatories specified in the summons to be served and answered on oath and ordered the specific discovery sought; costs were awarded to reflect plaintiff's unreasonable refusals, including indemnity costs for items unreasonably withheld to be summarily assessed.

Court Disposition

Order in terms of the summons: Further Interrogatories and Specific Discovery granted; plaintiff ordered to answer on oath; costs awarded

Orders

  • Defendants granted leave to file and serve the Further Interrogatories as specified in the summons (including §1(b), 2(b), 3(b), 3(f), 6(e), 7(a)(v) and 7(b)(iv)) and plaintiff ordered to answer them by affidavit/affirmation
  • Plaintiff ordered to give specific discovery of the documents specified in the summons (medical records from treating orthopaedic department, documents relating to plaintiff's investments/business activities, full bank passbooks/statements and transaction records and related proofs)