Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Redaction

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2023

KWOK WAI FUNG v. CHINA GAS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 83
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1964/2014

The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to show prima facie that the redacted parts of the Minutes were relevant to any properly pleaded issue; the information sought concerned other grantees and at best would be material for cross‑examination or lead to impermissible fishing, was not necessary for a fair disposal of the cause nor for saving costs, and the central contested issue is whether Mr Xu made the representation to the Board rather than the Board's unsupported belief; therefore discovery of the unredacted Minutes is refused.
10 Jan 2023

KWOK WAI FUNG v. CHINA GAS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 83
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1965/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the redacted portions of the Minutes were not shown to be relevant to any properly pleaded issue, would be at most material for impeachment of credit and therefore constituted impermissible fishing, and were not necessary for the fair disposal of the matter or for saving costs; the central issue is whether Mr Xu made the representation, not the identities or positions of other grantees.
12 Aug 2021

YUSUF ABDULLA YUSUF AKBAR ALIREZA v. FLEET OVERSEAS (NEW ZEALAND) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1178
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP99/2021

The drafts and communications were created for the predominant purpose of obtaining legal advice and are therefore protected by legal advice privilege; waiver was limited to the specific material actually disclosed; redaction was unnecessary; inspection was not necessary for the fair disposal of the cause and amounted to a fishing exercise; consequently the renewed application for leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Apr 2020

HONG KONG YIN HING MONASTERY LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 609
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP118/2011

The court held that the Government's affirmed evidence sufficiently established that the redacted portions of the Disputed Memo comprised confidential communications between departmental officers and legal advisers for the purpose of legal advice, and the Plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy burden required to rebut that affidavit; accordingly legal advice privilege applied and the Master’s refusal to order production of the unredacted memo was affirmed, with costs to the Defendant.
31 Dec 2019

CC, YL v. C, CSR

Citation

[2019] HKFC 329
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15718/2018

Leave was granted to the petitioner to disclose the respondent's Form E and two sets of Answers to the High Court bankruptcy proceedings, subject to redaction and a process for agreement on redactions, because the respondent had not clearly explained or provided company financial information and had been unwilling to volunteer that material to the Official Receiver; the court found the balance of interests and proportionality favoured disclosure limited to financial matters to avoid the bankruptcy court being misled while protecting other private information.
27 Nov 2017

K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

Citation

K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1061/2011

The court ordered specific discovery in part: bank account opening documents and mandates, bank statements, reconciliation statements and client ledgers (with client names redacted to client numbers) for the relevant period to permit a fund-flow analysis; seizure lists and police witness statements; documents and escrow agreements relating to the Escrow Actions and settlements; internal correspondence and meeting notes/emails concerning queried transfers (including the 16 June 2011 meeting and emails from August 2010); refused orders where K&L Gates swore no documents exist or where privilege…
18 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

After examination of the original decoded translations and the schedule of omissions, the judge concluded the omitted or redacted parts on their face either were not relevant to issues in the case or would reveal police surveillance tactics or identities of officers not relevant to the proceedings, and therefore the non-disclosure of those parts was justified in the circumstances.
24 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. LAM HING CHIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM HING CHIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC75/2017

The first letter is admissible because it is capable of being interpreted by a jury as tending to prove the Accused's involvement in the conspiracy and its prejudicial effect can be managed by redaction and jury directions; the third letter, though later and potentially self‑serving, should also be admitted subject to appropriate redaction to avoid unfair prejudice.
12 Apr 2017

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2017

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's exercise of discretion: on the evidence there was no real risk of serious sanctions against KPMG or KPMG Huazhen for complying with the January Order, sensitive material had been vetted and would be redacted, inspection-only was inadequate, and therefore production of copies subject to conditions and leave to return if circumstances change was justified; the appeal was dismissed with a 35-day extension to comply and costs were ordered against KPMG.
28 Mar 2017

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2017

The Tribunal granted confidentiality because the tender prices are commercially sensitive information, disclosure of non-party current and former employees' identities could cause unnecessary harm before any findings, and disclosure of the complainant's identity was unnecessary and would deter potential complainants; the procedural requirements were satisfied so redactions were allowed and the full non-redacted originating notice was sealed.