Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Document disclosure

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2025

黎秀琼對香港房屋委員會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 47
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4266/2019

The court held that because the 2022 case management order requiring delivery of document copies had been effectively modified by subsequent directions, there was no established breach justifying an immediate unless order; the plaintiff's three‑day delay in filing the appeal was excused on the merits because the proposed appeals were arguable; the proposed amendments were permitted because they did not materially change the cause of action, were substantially reflected in earlier witness statements, and would not delay the upcoming case management hearing; strict disclosure deadlines were imp…
10 Dec 2024

曹雯娟小姐對馬惠屏小姐及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2070
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ127/2022

Because the action had been formally discontinued by the judgment of 18 July 2024, there was no legal basis for the plaintiff to issue the 10 October 2024 summons or any other applications in that action; accordingly the summons was revoked, no costs order was made, and the plaintiff was formally warned that repetition would invite a restriction order.
26 Mar 2024

田珍妮對盧思燦

Citation

[2024] HKDC 478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3648/2023

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant already possessed the public business registration records, failed to show the requested documents were necessary or relevant to issues pleaded, and the disclosure sought amounted to an unnecessary fishing exercise; accordingly no order for further disclosure should be made and the registrar's refusal was upheld.
13 Dec 2023

SRI WAHYUNI 對林銳生

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1765
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2023

The defendant failed to prove the requested recordings existed or that the claimant had possession, custody or control of them; the claimant's sworn denials were decisive; disclosure of the specified recordings was not shown to be necessary for fair disposal and amounted to a fishing expedition, so the court had no jurisdiction under Order 24 r 7 to make the order and the application was dismissed.
8 Jun 2023

TSE SHAO CHUAN, the Administratrix of the estate of Ho Man Shing, deceased及另一人對 PANG KA YIN

Citation

[2023] HKDC 815
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1237/2022

The defendant's refusal to provide the estate grant and related documents prior to 16 August 2022 was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' plausible beneficiary status; plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw parts of their disclosure application (categories 3 and part of 4), no order as to costs was made for the period before 16 August 2022, and the defendant was awarded costs for the period after 16 August 2022 including costs for the affidavit filed 2 September 2022 assessed at HKD800; plaintiffs' own costs to be determined under legal aid rules.
21 Apr 2023

NG LEUNG MING t/a MING KEE ENG CONSTRUCTION CO v. HANKI CONTRACTORS (HONG KONG) & ASSOCIATES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1071
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA295/2020

The court refused leave to adduce the disputed internal records and the supplemental witness statement because the application was late with no adequate explanation, the documents were of doubtful provenance and secondary in nature, they were irrelevant or of little probative value to the central issue of Mr Wong's authority, and their admission would prejudice the Plaintiff and risk disrupting the imminent trial; leave was granted only for two non-contested items (site photos and a copy of the Subcontract).
4 Jan 2023

LU CHENG TE RAYMOND 對 VICTOR MO

Citation

[2023] HKDC 93
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP235/2022

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the jurisdictional preconditions for a s.47A pre-action disclosure order and failed to comply with Order 24(7A) by not identifying any plausible cause of action, not describing the documents with required particularity, and filing multiple incomprehensible and non-compliant affidavits; therefore the court had no jurisdiction to make the orders and would not exercise its discretion to grant disclosure.
1 Jun 2022

ZHENG YANQIU 對 NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI128/2021

The court held that documents from the regional court action are likely relevant to the High Court dispute on the claimant's health and income; there was no evidence that medical expert reports or amended schedules existed so disclosure of those items could not be ordered, but witness statements and court orders were either likely to exist or obtainable and therefore the claimant was ordered to disclose them within 28 days or to swear an affidavit/non-religious oath explaining whether such documents are or were in her possession, custody or control and, if not, when and what happened to them.
8 Oct 2021

WONG YEE CHUK AND ANOTHER v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3365/2016

The summons for discovery in respect of classes (b) and (g) was justified because the trademark transfer documents were referred to in the pleadings and discoverable; the Petitioners failed to give a clear response to discovery requests, and therefore must within seven days either produce the documents or confirm they do not have them and state whether they remain under their control; because the hearing and summons could have been avoided, the Petitioners must pay the 2nd Respondent's costs assessed at HK$100,000.
5 Jul 2021

梅冬庭對香港社會福利署

Citation

[2021] HKCA 940
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2021

Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the application did not raise any issue of wide public or general importance nor any other sufficient reason under Cap.484 s.22(1), and the application constituted an abuse of process as it was a third attempt to relitigate matters already finally considered in earlier judicial review proceedings; requests for disclosure and sworn verification were inappropriate at the leave stage.