Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Necessity

  • 28 Feb 2023

    CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 270
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV326/2021

    The Court of Appeal construed the 2005 Deed as acknowledging and preserving existing mutual pedestrian and vehicular rights of way over the Side Road such that plaintiffs have pedestrian and vehicular easements over the Side Gate; the 2006 Deed did not create a vehicular right over the Main Road because it expressly covered only specified parcels and the context (designated car parks and omitted parcels) precluded a vehicular easement by construction or implied grant; withholding of smart key cards from 21 July 2013 to 15 November 2013 unjustifiably interfered with plaintiffs' pedestrian ease…

  • 26 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN KIT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2860
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC236/2018

    The court held that expert evidence by a police officer on the workings of illicit retail drug operations and the specialised jargon used may be admissible if the witness demonstrates sufficient qualifications, independence and a transparent factual and methodological basis, and if the evidence is necessary to assist the jury and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect; the trial judge must tightly delineate scope and impose limiting directions to prevent overreach or substitution of jury fact‑finding.

  • 4 Dec 2017

    THIESS MONGOLIA LLC v. MONGOLIA ENERGY CORPORATION LTD

    Citation
    THIESS MONGOLIA LLC v. MONGOLIA ENERGY CORPORATION LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA34/2016

    Applying the broad Peruvian Guano relevance test and the CJR objectives, the court held the disputed primary exploration documents were at least prima facie relevant to the pleaded issues and their production was necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings and for saving costs; accordingly discovery of those documents was ordered.

  • 17 Apr 2015

    BRUCE JAMES STINSON v. GU MING GAO

    Citation
    BRUCE JAMES STINSON v. GU MING GAO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2352/2012

    The summons for third-party discovery was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that the extensive and overbroad categories of betting records requested were necessary and proportionate to the pleaded issues; requests to identify agents by pattern-searching millions of transactions amounted to an oppressive fishing expedition which HKJC could not perform; unpleaded allegations about agents meant the discovery sought exceeded what was necessary for fair disposal, so the court exercised its O.1A discretion to refuse the order despite HKJC's conditional offer to supply limited records.

  • 2 Apr 2015

    SIT KIM MING v. GROWTH LEADER LTD

    Citation
    SIT KIM MING v. GROWTH LEADER LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1055/2013

    The summons for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide a valid explanation for substantial, inordinate delay in prosecuting the application; although defendant did not adduce evidence of specific prejudice, the disciplinary aspect of the court's discretion and the continued availability of a narrower undertaking from the defendant justified refusal of the injunction and an award of costs to the defendant.

  • 13 Feb 2014

    CHINAPLUS WINES LTD v. NICHOLAS FREDERICK PEGNA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHINAPLUS WINES LTD v. NICHOLAS FREDERICK PEGNA AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA905/2011

    Advance discovery for the requested iPhone contact details is granted only on condition that the plaintiff gives an express undertaking not to copy, use or disclose the documents other than for the purpose of HCA905/2011 because the defendants' articulated concern about potential ulterior use (including vague police involvement) made it just and equitable to require the undertaking; the application for circa 50,000 old emails (2000-2006) is premature and should proceed, if at all, by normal discovery procedure given issues of relevance, cost and necessity, therefore no order was made for thos…

  • 16 Jul 2012

    “T” v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

    Citation
    “T” v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL102/2011

    The court held that the PPEO, properly construed, can apply to open unenclosed public spaces and to political demonstrations that include activities falling within Schedule 1; the licensing requirement is prescribed by law, rationally connected to legitimate aims of public safety and order and is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, therefore the constitutional challenge to the PPEO fails and the judicial review is dismissed.

  • 4 Apr 2011

    CHAK CHUN ON v. TAI CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHAK CHUN ON v. TAI CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI871/2010

    The plastic surgeon's report was dismissed because it failed the test of necessity, relevance and probative value: the joint orthopaedic report and photos already identified scars and reached maximum medical improvement; the proposed plastic treatments were optional (not necessary), the costs of the report were disproportionate, and parts of the report lacked probative basis (employment prejudice remark).

  • 16 Sept 2009

    STEP BY STEP LTD AND OTHERS v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

    Citation
    STEP BY STEP LTD AND OTHERS v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP843/2007

    Appeal allowed in part: the Master’s order was varied to require limited discovery of specified classes of primary transactional banking and accounting records of the 3rd defendant from incorporation to September 2008 (cheque books and stubs, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, cash books, telegraphic transfer forms and confirmations, daily sales deposit records and receipts, contracts/agreements/invoices/goods receipt notes/receipts/diaries/petty cash records and copies of asset contracts), and audited accounts for the 3rd and 4th defendants remain limited to the end of their 2007–2008 financia…

  • 16 Sept 2009

    STEP BY STEP LTD AND OTHERS v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

    Citation
    STEP BY STEP LTD AND OTHERS v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1208/2007

    Further evidence on appeal admitted as special grounds were shown; Master’s orders were varied: discovery of narrowly defined classes of primary transactional documents of the 3rd defendant from incorporation to September 2008 was ordered (cheque books and stubs, deposit slips, account withdrawal slips, cash books, telegraphic transfer forms and confirmations, daily deposit records and sales records, purchase records including contracts, agreements, invoices, goods receipt notes, receipts, diaries or documents recording expenditure claimed, petty cash books, and copies of contracts/agreements…