Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery against non-party

Legal area

Court

20 Aug 2021

ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2020

The summonses were dismissed because the application was premature pre-pleadings and sought extensive discovery and interrogatories of a non-party which the court has no jurisdiction to order at that stage; most requested materials are protected by legal professional privilege and do not fall within the limited Re Fuld exception (which is confined to evidence on attestation and execution); Larke v Nugus is not an enforceable basis to compel disclosure or waiver of privilege; the supervisory and inquisitorial jurisdictions do not extend to compelling a non-client solicitor to provide the broad…
24 Aug 2016

CHEUNG YUEN YING v. INTEGRATED DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

CHEUNG YUEN YING v. INTEGRATED DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1550/2016

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to explain the delay and, having failed to do so, could not show a real prospect of success; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall; the production order against the non‑party HKTDC was misconceived and in any event too late; costs were awarded to the defendant.
24 Aug 2015

LAU HO MING v. WONG PAK HO

Citation

LAU HO MING v. WONG PAK HO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC342/2009

An application under s47B can only succeed where the documents sought are relevant to an outstanding or anticipated issue in the underlying proceedings and the order is necessary for fair disposal of the cause or for saving costs; because the underlying employees compensation proceedings had been finally disposed of, the documents sought were not relevant to any issue in those proceedings and the s47B application was dismissed; costs ordered against the applicant (one‑third of the bank's costs).
13 May 2010

ABLE FORCE FREIGHT LTD v. EAST SUN ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

ABLE FORCE FREIGHT LTD v. EAST SUN ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP295/2010

Court ordered disclosure of the CCTV tape because Able Force established entitlement and the PDPO s58 exemption permits disclosure for remedying unlawful conduct, but held East Sun was an innocent non‑party whose refusal to release the tape without a court order was reasonable so Able Force must pay East Sun's costs and expenses of the proceedings and compliance.
1 Aug 2008

LIU CHEUNG KEUNG v. NG CHI KEUNG

Citation

LIU CHEUNG KEUNG v. NG CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI272/2008

The court ordered disclosure because the unedited summonses containing the employer's address were relevant under the Peruvian Guano principle as they would assist service and further inquiry to advance the plaintiff's case, and disclosure is exempted from the data protection principle by s58(2) of Cap.486.
3 Sept 1999

THIAN SUI CHING v. AU YEUNG KWAI CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

THIAN SUI CHING v. AU YEUNG KWAI CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1245/1998

Although the Insurer was not formally a party, its conduct in taking over the defence and its direct involvement with the Deed meant it was a party in substance; the Registrar did not err in awarding costs against the Insurer. The appeal is allowed in part: interlocutory costs awarded to the Plaintiff are to be taxable in any event (not forthwith); costs of complying with the discovery order are payable by the Insurer, taxable if not agreed; costs of the appeal are in the cause.

Hong Kong Case Law

ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

CHEUNG YUEN YING v. INTEGRATED DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY LTD

LAU HO MING v. WONG PAK HO

ABLE FORCE FREIGHT LTD v. EAST SUN ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD

LIU CHEUNG KEUNG v. NG CHI KEUNG

THIAN SUI CHING v. AU YEUNG KWAI CHUEN AND OTHERS