Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management and proportionality

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

RYAN ALEXANDER SOH by his father and next friend, DAVID SOH AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PALM COURT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI359/2017

Leave granted to obtain up-to-date joint medical expert evidence from the specified existing experts with a staged timetable and conditions: joint instructions within two months, experts to advise whether joint examinations are needed, examinations and joint reports to follow on specified timelines; assistive technology evidence is premature and should be considered after existing experts have opined; treating doctors' records are admissible as evidence of diagnoses and treatments; parties to revisit revision of statement of damages when Ryan has passed his 12th birthday and after the updated…
7 Dec 2023

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP882/2020

The appellant must first identify specific entries in the Fee Notes for which further particulars are sought; absent evidence casting doubt on the solicitor's integrity the raw contemporaneous time entries are not relevant or necessary to taxation; the Master's case management decision to require identification was correct and is upheld; appeal dismissed with leave to reapply after compliance with identification direction.
5 Jul 2019

TYT v. TLH

Citation

[2019] HKFC 177
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA3690/2017

The court refused to order expanded general discovery because the applicant failed to show the documents were in the respondent's possession custody or control and failed to establish necessity or proportionality for extending the statutory 12-month Form E disclosure period; specific discovery requires particularisation and, absent such specification or proof of control (including joinder of third parties where assets are in third party names), the orders sought must be dismissed.
8 Jan 2018

CLS v. LPKP

Citation

[2018] HKFC 6
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17127/2014

The wife's summons for specific discovery against the banker is dismissed because she failed to show that bank statements for the extended period (Apr 2010–Dec 2011) were necessary or proportionate for fair disposal; discovery should be sought against the husband under Order 24 r 7 and not by back-door orders against the bank; requests beyond the 3-year statutory presumption are presumptively disproportionate and retrospective investigations are discouraged absent strong evidence of dissipation.
29 Jul 2015

MELVIN WAXMAN v. LI FEI YU AND OTHERS

Citation

MELVIN WAXMAN v. LI FEI YU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1973/2012

The court refused to order the plaintiff to pay the 9th defendant's discovery costs at this interlocutory stage and held the question should be dealt with at the end of the trial because the relevant discovery and costs pre-dated the summons, the bulk of discovered documents were also relevant to other claims, the court needs the fuller context of trial to assess reasonableness and additionality, and it would be disproportionate and inefficient to decide this relatively small dispute by a separate hearing now.
2 Aug 2012

SUBBA ALVIN also known as GURUNG YADAP CHANDRA v. HOUNG KEE (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUBBA ALVIN also known as GURUNG YADAP CHANDRA v. HOUNG KEE (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI154/2010

The court refused leave to amend and to admit further orthopaedic and pain specialist evidence because the application was late, caused delay, breached the joint expert protocol, the new case was weak on its merits, and admitting it would be disproportionate and prejudicial contrary to CJR objectives; consequential costs were awarded against the plaintiff and a case management conference was ordered.
31 May 2011

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES B.V. v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES B.V. v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1913/2009

The Master’s refusal was overturned because paragraphs 2, 7 and 8 properly describe classes by the nature of documents sought, the classes are relevant under the broad Peruvian Guano test given the factual context, and discovery (subject to excluding specified due diligence documents) is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings and is not oppressive given the modest documented volume (circa 16 box files) and the ability to carve out due diligence material.
27 Feb 2008

LEE CHUN MUI v. SECURICOR GURKHA SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE CHUN MUI v. SECURICOR GURKHA SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI774/2005

The Master erred in excluding expert architectural evidence; the third party pleadings raise detailed allegations of professional negligence which are not amenable to determination by common sense or contract interpretation alone, and the trial judge will require expert evidence to determine industry standards, contractual performance and breach of duty, therefore expert evidence from an architect must be admitted.