Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery and inspection

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 452
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

The appeal was dismissed because it was in effect an out‑of‑time attack on the Master's case management decision (the 1st Order) and thus an abuse of process; the Master had not erred in law in directing the discovery and joint inspection to proceed and providing case management directions; pleadings were deemed closed so discovery applications were timely; the plaintiff's series of stay applications and late filings constituted misuse of court process; accordingly the 2nd Order was upheld and costs awarded to the defendant.
31 Aug 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCT 4
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2022

The President declined to order the proposed redactions at that hearing, adjourned the confidentiality application for the Commission to provide specific evidence and/or amend the Originating Notice, waived any procedural irregularity in timing of the application, and ordered that the confidentiality ring shall include the individual respondents and the directors of corporate respondents unless the Commission adduces credible, specific evidence justifying otherwise.
12 Aug 2021

YUSUF ABDULLA YUSUF AKBAR ALIREZA v. FLEET OVERSEAS (NEW ZEALAND) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1178
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP99/2021

The drafts and communications were created for the predominant purpose of obtaining legal advice and are therefore protected by legal advice privilege; waiver was limited to the specific material actually disclosed; redaction was unnecessary; inspection was not necessary for the fair disposal of the cause and amounted to a fishing exercise; consequently the renewed application for leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
8 Apr 2020

LAM KWOK KAI v. ORIENT VENTURE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 576
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW419/2019

Given the company is solvent and the directors have provided reasons which an intelligent honest person could hold, the court will grant a validation order for ordinary course payments with safeguards (monthly schedules and inspection) because the petitioner failed to adducing compelling evidence of likely injury or bad faith; the court will not order the proposed automatic set-off against JHK nor impose a fixed cap on legal costs but will validate reasonable legal expenses and set practicable procedural safeguards (timing of schedules and inspection rights).
22 Feb 2019

TACHING PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTA1/2018

The Tribunal held that Shell was entitled to redact its PoR as against its competitor Taching but not as against Meyer; Shell must disclose the unredacted PoR to Meyer; two named Meyer employees (James Cheng, CEO, and Sandy Chan, CAO) are admitted to the confidentiality ring on their undertakings; the Draft Protocol (modified) governs disclosure and inspection; other agreed case management directions and provisional costs orders (costs of Meyer to be borne by Shell; Taching costs in the cause equal split) were made.
22 Feb 2019

SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTA2/2018

The Tribunal found Shell had justified redaction of its points of reply against competitor Taching but had not discharged the burden to justify redaction against Meyer; Meyer (not a competitor) demonstrated a real need for two named in‑house employees (CEO James Cheng and CAO Sandy Chan) to be members of the confidentiality ring subject to undertakings and the modified Draft Protocol; the staged approach remains appropriate and parties may seek specific confidentiality treatment for individual documents; interim case management directions and provisional costs orders were made on a nisi basis.
3 Aug 2018

TAM CHOI LING v. KIDSWORLD INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI312/2018

Master M Lam’s 24/4/18 order allowing defendant to file and serve the Poon witness statement was within proper case management discretion and is affirmed, but fairness requires the plaintiff be permitted to file a supplemental witness statement in reply limited to matters in response to the Poon Statement within 28 days; the plaintiff’s appeal against the 26/1/18 orders filed three months late was dismissed for lack of satisfactory explanation and unmeritorious grounds, so no extension of time is granted.
22 Jan 2018

趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3071/2016

The Court refused the Order 29 preservation application because the Defendants did not have possession of the originals (they were affirmed to have been handed to PRC police) and because the Plaintiffs’ objective could be achieved by Order 24; accordingly the exercise of discretion to make an Order 29 preservation order was declined and the Court ordered disclosure of copies of six Disputed Documents and adjourned the Order 24 application with directions for pleadings/affirmations.
9 Jul 2009

KING MING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. LEE KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

KING MING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. LEE KAM SHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2008

The court held the plaintiffs have disclosed a cause of action in respect of the second type of injury under the principles in Heron International; the appeal is dismissed and costs are awarded to the plaintiffs, while any application to amend to pursue the first type of injury is a matter for the plaintiffs and does not affect the established cause of action for the second type.
1 Sept 2006

RE RSH

Citation

RE RSH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP592/2006

Both summonses were dismissed because the sought photocopied documents and helper statements were not directly alluded to and were irrelevant to the limited issues at a Part II inquiry assessing capacity and protective measures; the court would not exercise its discretion to order production under Order 24 Rule 11(1).