Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of discovery

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2025

CHAN CHING MAN v. MOX BANK LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1302
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6552/2024

Because the Plaintiff produced cogent evidence tracing the HK$289,351 to the Zhang Account and the disclosure sought was narrow and necessary to enable pursuit of recovery proceedings, the court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring the bank to disclose the account opening documents and address proofs within a defined time and granted leave to use the material for proceedings, with costs to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
14 Aug 2024

LONG HAI HONG (龍海紅) the administratrix of the estate of LEE SO WINSTON (李甦), deceased v. LIU DAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2116
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1537/2019

The appeals were dismissed because the Category 2 request did not precisely identify communications covering the later corrections in Long 2nd and, on the admitted facts in Long's witness statement and pleadings, the communications sought did not relate to any matter in issue but only to credit; consequently there was no jurisdiction to order specific discovery under O.24 r.7.
29 Mar 2019

K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 702
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1061/2011

The discovery summonses were dismissed because the requested classes were drafted excessively wide and vague, failed the requirement of specificity and relevance, substantial discovery had already been made and K&L Gates failed to show existence of further relevant documents, and because ordering disclosure of ROVE/RTS reports and related material would create a real risk of sanction under Macau law and regulatory prejudice; accordingly the court refused to order further discovery and refused to blue‑pencil a materially different class.
29 Mar 2019

K & L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 702
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA349/2012

The summonses were dismissed because the discovery classes were drafted excessively wide and vague (constituting fishing), K&L Gates failed to show existence of further relevant undisclosed documents, substantial relevant discovery had already been made, and, critically, disclosure of ROVE/RTS reports and related material posed a real risk of sanction under Macanese law (supported by DICJ letter and expert evidence), so the court exercised its discretion to refuse further discovery.
11 Aug 2017

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. WEI XING AND OTHERS

Citation

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. WEI XING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2012

The court held that limited discovery was necessary and proportionate for the account-taking ordered by the Judgment: production of specified SWT financial records for 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010 was ordered (books, payment and cash vouchers, management accounts, profit and loss accounts, bank transaction statements and general ledgers for accounting years ending 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010 and 31 March 2011). The court refused a late application to amend the summons and refused discovery requests which sought to re-litigate issues determined by the Judgment. WW was ordered to state on aff…
28 Sept 2016

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA537/2013

Discovery was ordered for agreements and communications (audio or written) relating to the discontinuance of third party proceedings in exchange for cooperation as witnesses because such benefits or sanctions are relevant to witness credibility and the integrity of the litigation; the agreements were not protected by litigation privilege in the circumstances and the word 'documents' in the request was refined to avoid vagueness.
3 Apr 2009

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. KWOK CHI LEUNG

Citation

ICAP (HONG KONG) LTD v. KWOK CHI LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA637/2007

Leave to re-amend was granted because the plaintiff legitimately pleaded an alternative, workably quantifiable method to assess bonuses payable in lieu of notice by reference to transactions the seven former desk members actually brokered for the competitor; objections based on ascertainability within seven days, employer discretion in bonus allocation, and alleged prejudice from disclosure were rejected as insufficient to deny leave, and discovery can be limited to numbers and volumes of transactions.
14 May 2008

DEACONS v. KEVIN RICHARD BOWERS

Citation

DEACONS v. KEVIN RICHARD BOWERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3046/2007

When paragraph 3 is read together with paragraph 4 of the perfected order (which dismissed class 12), it is clear the discovery ordered did not extend to mortgage‑related documents in class 12; there was no clerical mistake or ambiguity warranting correction under O 22 r 11, so the correction application is dismissed and no order as to costs is made.
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.
28 Apr 2006

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV133/2006

The Court held that the blanket order permitting unrestricted joint inspection and copying of all data on the defendant's forensic images was unnecessary and excessive at the interlocutory stage; the proper course was to limit the Schedule/paragraph 11 to documents over which the plaintiffs have an arguable case (the confidential documents pleaded in paragraph 17 of the statement of claim), and to set aside or restrict the broad inspection provision; costs awarded to the defendant accordingly.