Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Direct relevance

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2022

LU CHENG TE RAYMOND v. YEH SHING HANG KEVIN ARTHUR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2109/2021

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed the fundamental jurisdictional requirement under section 41 by not demonstrating a clear, non‑speculative intended claim or that a claim was 'likely' to be made; the pleadings and affidavits lacked sufficient particulars to identify the cause of action or show how the documents sought were directly relevant, so the court had no power to order pre-action discovery.
15 Oct 2015

ZHANG SHOUEN AND ANOTHER v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ZHANG SHOUEN AND ANOTHER v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP682/2015

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish the statutory jurisdiction for pre-action discovery: they did not particularise the intended claims or issues sufficiently, did not show how each of the 130 telephone recordings was directly relevant to issues likely to arise in the anticipated proceedings, and therefore failed the threshold under s.41 and Order 24 rule 7A; consequently the court would not exercise its discretionary power to order pre-action discovery and did not need to reach the necessity question under rule 8(2).