Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance test for discovery

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2014

LAU WING YEUNG v. KOWLOON CRICKET CLUB

Citation

LAU WING YEUNG v. KOWLOON CRICKET CLUB
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI955/2013

The court held that documents in DCPI 2491/2012 and bank transaction records that bear on the plaintiff's earnings, sick leave and funds received are relevant to causation and apportionment of loss of earnings and thus specific discovery is ordered as amended; discovery of the wife's general employment records is refused but her bank transaction records that show transfers to the plaintiff are ordered; no supplemental expert report was required; the plaintiff may serve a supplemental witness statement but the application to file a re-revised statement of damages is dismissed as premature; cos…
8 Jun 2010

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS v. KPMG (a firm)

Citation

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS v. KPMG (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA118/2007

Applied O Company v M Company test: discovery is confined to documents likely to yield substantial evidential materiality to the pleaded allegations (focused on North American debtors, circular trade finance, advances to third parties and Leadkeen/Ma Wu Bei). Defendants' preservation and searches were adequate; wholesale production of the ring‑fenced electronic area and all ESI was refused; defendants to disclose agreed additional peripheral files and all drafts of working papers; missing 1998 draft to be listed as formerly in defendants' possession with explanation; categories 4,5 and 8 adjo…
5 Nov 2007

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR

Citation

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV52/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the established discovery principles under Order 24 and the White Book apply equally to electronic documents, the Court of Appeal correctly found the documents were not shown to be relevant or within the respondent's possession/power, and the stringent criteria for granting interlocutory leave to appeal were not satisfied.
17 Oct 1989

LEUNG BING CHIU v. K-NGAI ENGINEERING CO AND ANOR

Citation

LEUNG BING CHIU v. K-NGAI ENGINEERING CO AND ANOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3618/1989

The court held that the Peruvian Guano formulation of relevance applies to s.42(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance; documents that may directly or indirectly advance a party's case or lead to a train of enquiry are 'relevant to an issue arising out of that claim.' Accordingly discovery from the Commissioner for Labour of specified categories of inspector notes, reports, witness declarations, equipment lists and notification documents was ordered, subject to an order under s.5(4) Cap.59 authorizing disclosure and to confidentiality undertakings; the Commissioner is to have his costs of making d…
11 Jul 1989

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/1989

The application for specific discovery was refused because applicants failed to show the requisite prima facie and powerfully persuasive relevance of the referenced RBI document; the existing evidence (April 1986 circular, bank circulars and subsequent letters including one from the Reserve Bank) established the material as advisory guidelines not s21 directions, and there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's conclusion or to order discovery that had not been sought below.
2 Dec 1988

GUESS? INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS

Citation

GUESS? INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/1988

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of 26 July 1988 because the judge's exercise of discretion was vitiated by failure to account for the reopening of issues following re-amendment of pleadings, the resulting change in scope and delay in discovery, and the likelihood that the order improperly delegated discovery to plaintiffs' agents; further the unusual order was not necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or to save costs under Rule 13 and the proper remedies would have been further affidavit/inspection or invocation of Rule 16 sanctions.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAU WING YEUNG v. KOWLOON CRICKET CLUB

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS v. KPMG (a firm)

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR

LEUNG BING CHIU v. K-NGAI ENGINEERING CO AND ANOR

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

GUESS? INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS