Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery obligations

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2025

NHD SYSTEMS (ASIA) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LI XIAO YI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1492/2018

The documents were equivocal and consistent with no concluded loan; absence of any accounting entry or disclosure in the IPO prospectus supported the inference that no loan was outstanding; the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the loan on the balance of probabilities and therefore, even assuming a prima facie case, the claim must fail. The liquidators' failure to search and disclose relevant records and dishonest evidence by a liquidator justify referral for disciplinary or disqualification consideration.
30 Sept 2024

TENWOW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL6/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were procedurally defective and amounted to dense reargument without merit; D2 failed to show that the Mutual Arrangement applied or that the D2 documents were subject to a blanket prohibition under Regulated Information requirements; the court properly exercised its discretion in light of delay, transfer of documents to Hong Kong and futility; and the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall.
18 Dec 2023

MAK SHIU CHEUNG v. LUK MAN TAI

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1801
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2741/2023

The court found the plaintiff failed to comply with PD 18.1 by omitting to disclose the existing Employees' Compensation proceedings and failing to provide required quantum documents, which prevented the defendant/insurer from giving a constructive reply and made the issue of proceedings premature; accordingly the summons was allowed and orders were made against the plaintiff for discovery, a three-month stay and adverse costs relating to preparation of the SOC/SOD and the summons (taxed party-and-party).
31 Aug 2023

CMBICDHAW INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI LEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA905/2020

Relief from sanctions and an extension of time were granted in part because the proven breaches were technical or rectified, the late delivery was short and attributable to solicitor technical issues, discovery was not shown to be illusory, and proportionality required allowing the defendants to defend serious fraud allegations; consequently the court admitted Li 4th, extended time to comply and to apply for relief, conditioned relief on rectification within 28 days, ordered restoration of the Defence and dismissal of the 2nd Judgment Summons upon compliance.
18 Feb 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 44
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

Application to adduce newly discovered documents was refused as excessively late, not properly made, inconsistent with the Consent Order and with closed written evidence, and the explanation for delay was unsatisfactory; exception made to admit a single letter to the Singapore Ministry of Defence; leave granted to produce amended charts and for the respondent to file an affirmation addressing the admitted letter before giving evidence.
2 Jul 2021

YUM SIU WAH v. WONG CHI SHING

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI473/2018

Costs awarded to the plaintiff up to 9 January 2020 (the relevant sanctioned payment acceptance date); costs after that date awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis; refusal to tax costs on District Court scale; interest on defendant's costs awarded at judgment rate plus 2%; loss of earning capacity damages do not attract pre-judgment interest; interim payment to be applied against interest-bearing heads as at date of payment on a weighted pro rata basis; payment out to plaintiff refused for lack of satisfactory evidence of ability/willingness to pay costs; payment out to defendant all…
20 Nov 2020

NEW SHIPPING LTD v. LAU WING YAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1280/2018

Appeal allowed in part: the court held defendant established sufficient relevance and necessity for targeted discovery and interrogatories central to his defence of justification/privilege. Unredacted bareboat charterparties (including charter period, hire and insurance entries) and specific management/Skuld/Certificate of Entry and technical/crew management contracts with Seacon since 20 Aug 2017 must be produced; certain interrogatories on beneficial ownership and directors of Victory Sail and Plain Sail (specified sub‑paragraphs) must be answered. Other categories (broad ownership correspo…
23 Oct 2019

OHED WINES (HK) LTD AND OTHERS v. FUNG LAI KWAN WINDY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1531/2016

The court refused to grant the defendants' proposed unless order because striking out the plaintiffs' claim was disproportionate and not tailored to the prejudice; however, the plaintiffs were given a final opportunity to serve a comprehensive list of documents covering the requested categories supported by a verifying affidavit (specific discovery). Costs before the Master remain as ordered; appeal costs awarded to defendants on an indemnity basis.
23 Mar 2018

CHUN SANG PLASTICS CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 661
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2278/2008

The seizure and detention of the 17 containers by police on 9-10 October 2008 was unlawful because section 55 of the Police Force Ordinance does not extend to fixed warehouse/container premises (ejusdem generis); the police unlawfully detained goods and thereby committed the torts of conversion and detinue; DOJ compounded the illegality by failing to release goods promptly; conduct fell short of misfeasance in public office (no intent to harm) but justified damages, interest and costs on an indemnity basis.
1 Dec 2017

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

The application to admit late expert valuation evidence was refused because the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the serious delay, the belated instruction of new counsel was not a proper justification, there were outstanding discovery disputes and a real risk that admitting the evidence would prejudice the plaintiff and jeopardise the fixed trial timetable.