Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery/fishing expedition

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2004

TIKEN LTD v. BRIERLEY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TIKEN LTD v. BRIERLEY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL87/2000

The court held that the fact of the low settlement alone (HK$78m from HK$496m) is insufficient as a particular to establish a breach of the contractual obligation to use all reasonable endeavours to maximize Gross Contract Income; accordingly the specific proposed paragraphs and counterclaim alleging that breach were disallowed while the rest of the revised defence amendments were permitted.
18 Jun 1997

VO THI DO AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE

Citation

VO THI DO AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV62/1997

On the applicants' pleaded case and on the High Court judge's own factual findings, the Director had generally taken all reasonable steps and detention under s13D(1) was lawful for the detainees in issue; the High Court erred in conducting individualized microscopic inquiries outside the pleaded case and in ordering broad discovery and rolling affidavits which amounted to a fishing expedition; the Bill of Rights exclusion in s11 applied to immigration detention; orders for release and extensive discovery/rolling affidavits were therefore set aside or discharged.
18 Jun 1997

CHIENG A LAC AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE

Citation

CHIENG A LAC AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1997

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred by undertaking microscopic, roving inquiries and granting broad discovery outside the scope of the applicants' pleaded case; on the evidence and the judge's own findings the Director had, generally-speaking, taken all reasonable steps under Hardial Singh and s13D(1A)/(1AA), so detention remained lawful for the many detainees; s11 excludes Bill of Rights protection for the immigration detention issue; the judge's orders for release in four test cases and broad discovery/rolling affidavits were set aside or discharged accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

TIKEN LTD v. BRIERLEY INVESTMENTS LTD

VO THI DO AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE

CHIENG A LAC AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHITEHEAD DETENTION CENTRE