Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Discovery necessity and scope

Legal area

Court

21 May 2015

HAPPY DYNASTY HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

HAPPY DYNASTY HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/2014

The application for discovery was refused because the documents sought were not necessary for determining the central issue—whether a binding agreement existed—and were not sufficiently relevant in view of the pleadings, the issues in dispute, and discovery already made; post‑CJR disclosure must be restricted to what is necessary to ensure an effective trial and avoid unnecessary costs.
3 Nov 2005

CARLOS MANUEL KWONG v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS

Citation

CARLOS MANUEL KWONG v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2005

The judge's order for discovery (limited to specified periods and by affidavit/specific documents) was justified because the plaintiff's overall financial position during the periods when positions remained open was material to whether trades were intended to be cash or margin; the Hang Seng Bank letter was an inadequate snapshot; discovery was necessary and not oppressive; paragraph (3) of the Deputy Judge's order was unnecessary and was set aside; otherwise the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant.