Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidentiality undertakings

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2018

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

Because defendant 1 alone was entitled to any secret profit under the earlier judgment and because of the plaintiff's misleading account and limited discovery, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide a verified, document-supported account of all income and benefits from KPCB-CF and KV to 31 December 2012, required confidentiality undertakings from the defendants, and imposed detailed timetables and rights of inspection, objection, affidavit reply and cross-examination to permit a proper taking of the account.
7 Dec 2012

NGAN IN LENG AND OTHERS v. CHU YUET WAH

Citation

NGAN IN LENG AND OTHERS v. CHU YUET WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA388/2006

The court held that certain classes of documents relating directly to the Casa Real and Grandview transactions were relevant and likely to exist but limited disclosure was necessary and proportionate. For the Chu Summons the court found classes 10 and 11 were in Chu's possession/power and ordered discovery limited to those classes; other classes (including Subscription and remuneration/consultancy and drafts) were excluded as irrelevant, speculative or fishing. For the GR Summons against Kingston the court found a prima facie case of likely possession and relevance for specified classes but d…
3 Jan 2011

CHUI PUI KUN v. FOOK LAM MOON RESTAURANT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUI PUI KUN v. FOOK LAM MOON RESTAURANT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP270/2010

The Rules adopted in 2008 do not apply to inspection of board minutes; the Rules, while not inherently invalid as procedural measures, cannot limit the directors' common law right to inspect board minutes; Applicants were entitled to access and, given uncertainty as to completeness of prior inspections, the court ordered the companies and specified directors to provide full access and allow copying of all board minutes within 14 days; costs ordered nisi (no order as to costs).
24 Jun 2002

REALINK INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG WAI WING AND OTHERS

Citation

REALINK INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG WAI WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1084/2001

The application for personal inspection by the Defendants was refused because the Plaintiffs' undisputed evidence showed that an independent, experienced computer programmer agreed by the parties could determine whether exhibit FLY-8 was written by the 2nd Defendant; consequently personal inspection was not necessary under O.24 r.13(1), and inspection, if any, should be by an agreed expert subject to undertakings and by agreement as to order form.
29 Sept 2000

PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11787/1999

The court ordered disclosure of the whole of the Plaintiff's source code because the defence experts' evidence established that the entire source code was material and interrelated such that inspection of only selected parts would frustrate proper expert analysis and the fair disposal of the action; the applicant's case on materiality is to be assumed for the purpose of testing the necessity of production under Order 24 r13(1), and deferral of disputed parts was not appropriate.
29 Sept 2000

PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13420/1999

The court ordered production and inspection of the whole of the Plaintiff's source code because the defence experts' evidence established that full access was material and necessary for a fair disposal of the action and for expert assessment of alleged copying; partial disclosure would be insufficient since the source code files are interrelated and context-dependent; confidentiality concerns to be addressed by agreed protective terms.
1 Feb 2000

CABLE & WIRELESS HKT TELEPHONE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CITY TELECOM (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

CABLE & WIRELESS HKT TELEPHONE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CITY TELECOM (H.K.) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to establish at this interlocutory stage a sufficient likelihood that discovery would be misused to justify a split trial; overlapping relevance of documents to liability and damages and availability of confidentiality safeguards make a split trial unnecessary, and the trial judge's discretionary case management decision should not be disturbed absent error of principle or clear wrong.
29 May 1997

THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID v. VAN CAN ON and Others

Citation

THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID v. VAN CAN ON and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/1997

The Court of Appeal allowed the DLA's appeal: the applicants failed to demonstrate procedural unfairness in the DLA's decision because the alleged unfairness concerned the hearing before the master (the decision-maker under s.26) and the appeal should have been restored to him; the master was the appropriate forum to decide what disclosure was necessary and the judicial review was premature and collateral, so relief should have been refused.
17 Oct 1989

LAU CHI CHIU v. TAI YIEH CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

LAU CHI CHIU v. TAI YIEH CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3589/1989

The court held that the Brett L.J. test in The Peruvian Guano Case applies to s.42 discovery; documents which may directly or indirectly lead to evidence advancing a party's case or damaging the opponent's are 'relevant to an issue arising out of that claim' and therefore discoverable from the Commissioner for Labour subject to judicial discretion and appropriate safeguards; accordingly ordered specified categories of documents to be produced, authorized disclosure under s.5(4) Cap.59 as justice requires, and imposed confidentiality and limited-use undertakings and costs to the Commissioner.
17 Oct 1989

LEUNG BING CHIU v. K-NGAI ENGINEERING CO AND ANOR

Citation

LEUNG BING CHIU v. K-NGAI ENGINEERING CO AND ANOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3618/1989

The court held that the Peruvian Guano formulation of relevance applies to s.42(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance; documents that may directly or indirectly advance a party's case or lead to a train of enquiry are 'relevant to an issue arising out of that claim.' Accordingly discovery from the Commissioner for Labour of specified categories of inspector notes, reports, witness declarations, equipment lists and notification documents was ordered, subject to an order under s.5(4) Cap.59 authorizing disclosure and to confidentiality undertakings; the Commissioner is to have his costs of making d…