Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 24 discovery

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2023

KEIRON PETER ARCH ROCHESTER v. GLORY SKY PRECIOUS METALS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA395/2019

The court allowed the defendant to file and serve the two supplementary witness statements as they were relevant and would not disrupt trial or cause real prejudice, but excluded specified portions of Chan WS that sought to introduce expert-style evidence; the discovery summons was dismissed because the defendant failed to discharge the burden under Order 24, rule 3 to show from disclosed documents that final signed police statements existed beyond the drafts disclosed.
10 Nov 2022

LEE CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI CHIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1880/2020

Although the court found there was a serious issue to be tried on the plaintiffs' trust claim, the applications for preservation order, proprietary injunction, interim preservation of company assets and ancillary discovery were dismissed because (a) plaintiffs delayed in adducing expert reports and those reports were refused; (b) damages were an adequate remedy given substantial net equity in the properties and no demonstrated inability of defendants to satisfy judgment; (c) many discovery requests failed Order 24 r.10 requirement of direct allusion to documents or were outside defendants' po…
9 Oct 2012

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KODAK HOUSE II AND NO. 321 JAVA ROAD v. KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KODAK HOUSE II AND NO. 321 JAVA ROAD v. KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA711/2011

All items in the Schedule of Discovery were dismissed because the requested classes were either too wide and oppressive (fishing), insufficiently tied to issues pleaded for trial, or were matters properly reserved for separate accounting or damages assessment proceedings; consequential directions and costs orders were made including leave to amend the statement of claim and a costs award to the defendant.
13 Jul 2011

EFFISCIENT LTD v. LEHMANBROWN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EFFISCIENT LTD v. LEHMANBROWN LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW383/2010

The court found the petitioner failed to satisfy that the inspection under s152FA was made in good faith for a proper purpose (the application was disproportionate, amounted to a fishing expedition and was tainted by possible ulterior motives including harassment/competition), so jurisdiction under s152FA was not triggered; alternatively, in the exercise of discretion the inspection and most specific discovery requests were refused as unnecessary or overly broad, with limited narrowly framed discovery/affidavit requirements allowed for specific classes in the cross‑petitioner's summons; costs…
3 Dec 2004

RE APP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

RE APP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2420/2004

The court granted both discovery applications and was prepared to lift the interim stay for the limited purpose of permitting discovery because the documents were specifically referred to in APP (Hong Kong)'s reply affirmation, were relevant to the stay application and to the merits/administration of APPIT (V)'s claim under the proposed scheme, and APPIT (V) had no adequate alternative means to obtain the material; the implied undertaking did not prevent disclosure of documents referred to in affidavit under Order 24 rule 10.
25 Mar 2004

MARK GERARD FAIRBAIRN v. MARK JONATHAN ROBERTS AND OTHERS

Citation

MARK GERARD FAIRBAIRN v. MARK JONATHAN ROBERTS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4200/2003

Discovery of the agreement was in principle relevant and permissible under Order 24 rule 3, but on the materials (notably the affidavits by the claimant and his solicitors) the court was satisfied the documents were not necessary for fair disposal under Order 24 rule 8; accordingly the respondents' appeal against the Master's dismissal of the discovery order was dismissed and costs allocated as ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

KEIRON PETER ARCH ROCHESTER v. GLORY SKY PRECIOUS METALS LTD

LEE CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI CHIN AND OTHERS

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KODAK HOUSE II AND NO. 321 JAVA ROAD v. KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

EFFISCIENT LTD v. LEHMANBROWN LTD AND ANOTHER

RE APP (HONG KONG) LTD

MARK GERARD FAIRBAIRN v. MARK JONATHAN ROBERTS AND OTHERS