Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subpoena duces tecum

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2025

K v. TAM CHAU LONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1587
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO15/2023

Both applications were dismissed: the interrogatories were excessively prolix, oppressive and amounted to fishing beyond the matters in question and failed the stringent necessity test; the subpoenas to non-parties were overly wide, speculative and not shown to be relevant or necessary for fair disposal of the case. The psychiatric reports were not relied on as expert evidence. No order as to costs, but warning given to Claimant about proportionality and potential costs consequences under s73C.
25 May 2023

WU YURONG v. ON TIME BUILDING MATERIAL AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 670
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2188/2022

The summons against the plaintiff was dismissed because the plaintiff did not possess the treating doctor's internal notes, only the doctor could verify their existence or completeness, and the defendant had available and more appropriate procedural remedies (non‑party property inspection under s47B/Order 29 r7A or subpoena duces tecum under Order 38 r14) to obtain those records; therefore the order against the plaintiff would have been futile and unfair, and costs follow the event.
8 Aug 2019

DR TSE KIT MING v. THE COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGEONS OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2856/2016

Leave to issue subpoenas was granted because the evidence and documents sought from Dr Lee and Dr Chan were directly related to pleaded issues, the circumstances and reasons for the agreed mechanism were within their exclusive knowledge, there was no plain suggestion the subpoenas would be an abuse of process, the delay was explainable and not prejudicial to trial preparation, and it is not for the court at the leave stage to pre-judge the ultimate usefulness of the evidence.
26 Jun 2019

COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1376
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1987/2016

The Court upheld the subpoena duces tecum because the specified bank statements, remittance documents and communications were directly relevant, proportionate and likely in DW's possession; but it set aside the subpoena ad testificandum because the Plaintiff failed to show it acted with due diligence to obtain DW's cooperation and a witness statement before compelling attendance, thereby failing the procedural practice required for subpoenaing testimony.
23 May 2019

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (a firm) v. CHRIS AU RETRIBUTION LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3030/2015

The court granted pre-hearing cross-examination of D1 and Ho and ordered disclosure/production of defined Payment Records because the Defendants had filed inconsistent evidence as to D1's beneficial interest in D2 and its bank accounts, the proposed cross-examination was likely to produce a useful result directly relevant to the substantive determination of whether a charging order should be made or the injunction discharged, and the order was proportionate and necessary in the interests of justice.
6 May 2019

WONG WAI WING v. MANG FAN LIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1498/2016

The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay: the plaintiff's application for leave to issue subpoenas was made at a stage (the morning of the first of seven trial days) that was too late and would prejudice parties and the court's preparation; therefore leave was refused without the court addressing the merits or relevance of the evidence sought.
6 Dec 2018

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. RICH RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2013

No clear and unambiguous admission was established on the pleadings to preclude amendment; the proposed amendments raise primarily questions of law, rely on no new evidence and cause no identified irremediable prejudice; accordingly leave to amend the Defences and Counterclaims and consequential pleadings was granted to enable determination of the real issues. The application by MTRC to discharge subpoenas was refused but the scope of the writs was narrowed.
6 Dec 2018

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. ASIA ALLIED INFRASTURCTURE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA371/2014

The court found no clear and unambiguous admission by the Defendants that would bar amendment; the proposed amendments raised primarily legal issues not bound to fail and caused no identified prejudice or delay to trial; accordingly leave to amend was granted with specified timetables so the real questions in controversy can be determined. MTRC's application to discharge subpoenas was refused but the scope of the writs was narrowed. Costs of the amendment applications were reserved to be decided after trial.
26 Sept 2018

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. RICH RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2013

The court refused to order Deacons/Mr Chung to prepare a detailed privilege list because the plaintiff failed to identify the documents in the subpoenas and the application was made late; conversely the court granted leave to the plaintiff to obtain updated expert valuation reports as at a date close to judgment because the pleadings permitted valuation at date of judgment, no specific prejudice was shown, and case management can address lateness by imposing a tighter timetable.
26 Sept 2018

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. ASIA ALLIED INFRASTURCTURE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA371/2014

The court refused to order the subpoenaed solicitor to compile the detailed privileged-document list because the plaintiff failed to identify the documents in the subpoenas (the identification burden rests on the party seeking the subpoena), the application was late and discovery applications should have been made against Rich Resource; however the court granted leave to the plaintiff to obtain updated expert valuation reports as at a date closer to judgment because the pleadings expressly allowed valuation at the date of judgment, none of the defendants showed specific prejudice, and the cou…