Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Peruvian guano relevance test

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2025

VICTORY CITY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2083/2024

The court ordered pre-pleading specific discovery of Deloitte's audit working papers for FY2012–FY2019 because (1) the AWPs exist and are in Deloitte's possession; (2) they are relevant under the Peruvian Guano test and necessary to enable the joint liquidators to plead and particularise complex, cumulative audit negligence allegations across multiple years; (3) exceptional circumstances justified early discovery given piecemeal and incomplete prior production, the likelihood of substantial pleadings' amendment and attendant time and cost savings, the ready availability of documents, and abse…
4 Sept 2025

SOCAM DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as SHUI ON CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS LTD) v. NEW PI (HONG KONG) INVESTMENT CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1974/2017

The judge allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the Master’s order for discovery of the Class III Documents because defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of existence and relevance in respect of the whole class (all three document types); the request was too wide and not sufficiently particularized, the disclosed email did not establish relevance in the Peruvian Guano sense to the pleaded interference, and the blue pencil could not save the application; accordingly specific discovery for Class III was dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
1 Sept 2025

KITAHARA HONG KONG CO, LTD v. CHENG KAM WAH GRACE (鄭金華) (ALSO KNOWN AS CHENG GRACE OR 鄭詠騰)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1483
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1088/2019

Applying the Peruvian Guano relevance test the court ordered specific discovery for the narrowed categories because the documents sought were in the responding party's possession and were reasonably capable of advancing the requesting party's case or leading to inquiry; fishing objections failed after narrowing. Security for costs was justified on the plaintiff's foreign/dormant/weak financial position but the quantum sought by defendant was manifestly excessive; balancing prejudice and proportionality the court fixed security at HK$250,000. Costs orders nisi were made allocating costs agains…
29 Jul 2024

TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1242
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1139/2022

The court found the Non‑Party was likely to have the requested documents and those documents were relevant under the Peruvian Guano test; by putting into issue whether the Non‑Party had authority or instructions to make the settlement offer, the Defendant impliedly waived legal professional privilege as to those communications; accordingly disclosure by affidavit and production of the documents sought was ordered, with timing and costs directions.
27 May 2020

SOUND GRACE DEVELOPMENT LTD V. PEARL WISDOM LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1947/2013

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Class 2 SFC investigation documents were relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings under the Peruvian Guano test and the request constituted a fishing expedition; therefore specific discovery was not warranted and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Dec 2019

Y, JYW v. Y, SC

Citation

[2019] HKFC 322
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC31/2018

Joinder was unnecessary because the husband did not seek specific proprietary orders requiring transfer of legal title from the father and the father can be a witness; extensive third‑party discovery was refused because requests were overbroad, insufficiently particularised, not necessary for FDR and disproportionate; where appropriate the court can achieve relief by add‑back rather than joining a third party or ordering intrusive discovery.
22 Aug 2019

ZENJOY LTD v. CONTEX GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1339/2019

Dismissal: applicant failed to establish that the bank documents sought were relevant to an issue the court must adjudicate in the proceedings (Peruvian Guano) and failed to show that discovery was necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs under O.24 r.8(2); the proposed restrain order was injunctive in nature and outside the Master’s jurisdiction in these proceedings.
7 Dec 2018

WJT v. YATM

Citation

[2018] HKFC 225
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP79/2017

The court applied the O.24 r.7 prerequisites (relevance, existence, possession) and the Peruvian Guano relevance test, rejected blanket refusal based on asserted ability to pay, and ordered targeted discovery necessary to assess the Father’s financial means and the child’s pre‑separation standard of living while refusing requests that would be oppressive or unnecessary (e.g. formal valuation reports and certain company bank statements); specific questions in each party’s questionnaire were allowed or disallowed accordingly and timed disclosure was ordered with costs reserved as costs in the c…
23 Apr 2018

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION v. MOZART MANAGEMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2105/2016

The court ordered specific discovery from the 2nd defendant (bank vouchers for the listed transactions and management/audited accounts for 2007–2009) because the documents exist, are in the defendants' control, relate directly to matters in issue (tracing of Funds and testing the bona fide purchaser defence) and are necessary for the fair disposal of the action; the application for wide-ranging bank statements and related documents of the 3rd defendant for the requested periods was refused as a disproportionate fishing exercise with insufficient utility to connect the Funds to the 3rd defenda…
25 Jan 2017

A v. B

Citation

A v. B
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9824/2015

The court ordered limited, targeted discovery: the respondent must use best endeavours to provide company information and details of trust distributions and file an affidavit within 14 days, and the petitioner must produce specified outstanding documents within 14 days; broad requests about third‑party accounts were refused as impermissible fishing and extensive bank tracing was adjourned to the maintenance pending suit hearing. The orders balance relevance and proportionality under Order 24 r7/r8 and established authority on directors' power to produce company documents.