20 Jan 2026
The court found the interrogatories sought were sufficiently relevant to the core issue of employment status and necessary to enable proper preparation and to save costs; it therefore ordered the specified interrogatories to be served and answered by sworn affidavit within the prescribed periods and rejected the unsigned statement as inadmissible evidence.
31 Oct 2025
The master’s order was upheld because the interrogatories were irrelevant given the defendant's prior disclosure of 11 properties, constituted a fishing expedition, would not assist fair disposal or save costs, and tracing enquiries are premature until liability is established; accordingly the interrogatories must be withdrawn and costs follow the event.
2 Oct 2025
Both applications were dismissed: the interrogatories were excessively prolix, oppressive and amounted to fishing beyond the matters in question and failed the stringent necessity test; the subpoenas to non-parties were overly wide, speculative and not shown to be relevant or necessary for fair disposal of the case. The psychiatric reports were not relied on as expert evidence. No order as to costs, but warning given to Claimant about proportionality and potential costs consequences under s73C.
26 Sept 2025
The court refused the applicant's attempt to file the supplemental witness statement and disallowed the bulk of the 32 interrogatories because they were irrelevant, oppressive, amounted to cross-examination or were a fishing expedition; it granted respondent leave to adduce a single psychiatric expert because independent expert opinion was necessary and of probative value on diagnosis, causation, necessity and loss of earning capacity; costs follow the event with specified summary assessments and nisi orders.
2 Sept 2025
Service by post to the Tai Hang Road address was valid as a last known address and the Default Judgment was regular; the defendant failed to establish a defence with a real prospect of success or credible evidence of duress or that the loan was from a third party; the defendant grossly delayed and failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay in seeking relief from sanctions so relief is refused. Accordingly the appeal fails and both the Setting Aside and Relief Summonses are dismissed.
21 Aug 2025
The court allowed the defendants' Amendment Applications to narrow their pleaded case, held the interrogatories disallowed because the Notarial Repayment and its withdrawal are not relevant to the parties' pleaded cases and do not meet the stringent necessity test, and struck out the plaintiff's impugned paragraphs as outside the leave granted and as disclosing no reasonable defence or relevant case; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Striking Out Application allowed.
17 Apr 2025
The court held that Tran's successive amended defences filed without her statement(s) of truth are ineffective as regards her; she must verify the RAD and RRAD within 35 days or the amendments concerning her are struck out and she is debarred from adducing evidence in respect of them; certain interrogatories (questions 7,9,10,15,16,18) were necessary and granted with a 35-day answer period (but the court declined to impose a disproportionate automatic striking-out consequence for failure); defendants University and Yu were granted retrospective leave to amend their RRAD in terms of the RRRAD…
16 Apr 2025
The Notice of Application does not plead the necessary elements of a claim for negotiating (Wrotham Park) damages and therefore the interrogatories seeking licence dates and income are not relevant or necessary to any matter in question between the parties, amount to a fishing exercise and improperly seek discovery; accordingly leave to administer those interrogatories is refused and the summonses are dismissed.
31 Dec 2024
The court held that the inconsistent employer returns and the plaintiff's tax filings were relevant to the dispute over earnings and that the missing tax assessments/demands should be produced and admitted for the purpose of the appeal; the court applied O.26 r.1(1) RHC and exercised its discretion to permit production of the documents and to remit the matter for further consideration in light of the newly produced materials.
19 Jul 2024
The court granted leave to appeal on Grounds 1, 4 and 6 because the defendant demonstrated reasonable prospects that LPP attaching to estate materials may not be lawfully asserted by an executrix under the contested later will against a rival claimant; the court refused leave on Grounds 2, 3, 5 and 7 for lack of reasonable prospects; and refused leave against Decision 1 because the third‑party discovery application was premature when made and became academic after pleadings were filed and issues crystallised.