Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Norwich pharmacal discovery

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD v. EXCELLENCE RAISE OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 701
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2023

The Court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the warehouse receipts were forged and that the transactions formed a coordinated fraud; it held the plaintiff’s sums were traceable to the monies received by ERO, JA and HE and that, given the nature of the scheme, rescission was unnecessary for a proprietary remedy; accordingly constructive trusts and restitutionary relief were available and the appeal by ERO, JA and HE was dismissed.
28 Jan 2025

KONG SAI KING v. LONG BRIDGE HK LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 131
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6779/2024

Norwich Pharmacal disclosure was granted because the plaintiff produced cogent and compelling contemporaneous evidence of a telephone fraud, the requested, narrowly framed disclosure was likely to enable tracing or preservation of assets, alternative means had been exhausted, and the balance of interests favored disclosure subject to protective undertakings and agreed amendments; costs of the application were awarded to the defendant (HK$12,000).
30 Aug 2013

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA CO PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA CO PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2210/2011

The court granted comprehensive injunctive and ancillary relief tailored to Tsit Wing’s successful findings of trade mark infringement under s 18(3) TMO and passing off, limited the defendants' proposed broad formulations, fixed transitional periods (chiefly 60 days from 30 August 2013 for implementation, with 14 days to withdraw HK trade mark applications and 35 days for Norwich-style discovery), authorized plaintiffs to act if defendants fail to comply, permitted limited delivery up and required affidavits on oath, allowed specific discovery for assessment of profits/damages and release fro…
17 Mar 2008

HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG AND OTHERS v. ISA BOUTIQUE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG AND OTHERS v. ISA BOUTIQUE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA251/2007

The court allowed particulars where they were relevant and necessary to clarify the Defendants' pleaded statutory parallel import defence (specifying source of goods and which type(s) of consent under s20(1) relied upon, particulars of tampering under s20(2), and identification of types of goods marks), and refused particulars that were immaterial, vague, repetitive, or amounted to evidence-seeking or improper attempts to obtain Norwich Pharmacal relief; defendants ordered to provide allowed particulars within 14 days.
26 Jan 2006

CINEPOLY RECORDS CO LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CINEPOLY RECORDS CO LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2487/2005

The court held that Norwich Pharmacal relief remains available where the information sought is personal data; s58(1)(d) of the PDPO covers tortious conduct including copyright infringement and s58(2) therefore authorizes disclosure where application of Principle 3 would prejudice prevention, preclusion or remedying of that conduct; the plaintiffs proved the Norwich Pharmacal elements and the balance of competing interests favored disclosure; a court order authorizing discovery under equitable jurisdiction constitutes authorization by law that permits disclosure despite licence confidentiality…
21 Oct 2004

SHANGHAI MERCHANTS HOLDINGS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOTHER v. GREAT CENTER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHANGHAI MERCHANTS HOLDINGS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOTHER v. GREAT CENTER LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2433/2003

The court found the discovery provided by the 7th and 8th defendants to be illusory and insufficient in light of objective facts and other defendants' disclosures; accordingly the plaintiffs are not obliged to reimburse the costs claimed for purported compliance with the 18 July 2003 discovery orders (while costs of the original application remain payable unless the order is varied) and the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the summonses.
8 Feb 2000

RE GREATER BEIJING REGION EXPRESSWAYS LTD

Citation

RE GREATER BEIJING REGION EXPRESSWAYS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW399/1999

The court has jurisdiction under Norwich Pharmacal principles to order discovery to contributories/parties to a winding up petition where the information is necessary for them to make an informed decision and cannot be obtained from any other source; applying the discretionary test, the discovery ordered on 24 November 1999 should stand (applications to discharge dismissed) and targeted discovery as amended should be granted because justice requires contributories not be forced to decide on the petition without necessary information.
22 Jun 1995

CANON KABUSHI KI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CANON KABUSHI KI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7844/1993

The court granted injunctions restraining infringement with specific Hong Kong territorial limits inserted for identified manufacturing acts, refused to limit conversion injunctions to Hong Kong because s18 treats moulds as the plaintiff's property regardless of removal from Hong Kong, confined the repair exception narrowly to specific parts subject to affidavit identification, labelling and safeguards (catalogue wording, customer identity disclosure in some cases), ordered Norwich Pharmacal discovery now (subject to cross-undertaking) and required the plaintiff to elect between damages or ac…