Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery compliance

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2021

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW352/2014

The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate that, more than seven years after the latest relevant transactions, the Banks are likely to have the documents sought; absent evidence from the Banks suggesting a thorough search would locate documents, the statutory test for third party discovery under s42 Cap 4 and RHC O24 r7A is not met, so the summonses must be dismissed.
22 Jan 2020

AU YEUNG, CHENG, HO & TIN (A FIRM) AND OTHERS v. AU YEUNG CHI SANG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA288/2014

The appeal is dismissed: the court found the plaintiffs had complied with Question 3(ii) by stating their methodology (average monthly net profit equated to fees earned) and supporting account records; interrogatories cannot force a party to concede a contested measure of damages; dismissal was disproportionate and unnecessary (relief from sanction would have been granted if required).
27 Jul 2016

JOSEPH LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (a firm) v. CHU SIU HOI

Citation

JOSEPH LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (a firm) v. CHU SIU HOI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1108/2013

The court held the plaintiff had substantially obtained the relief sought by enforcing the Allocatur and was therefore entitled to discontinue with costs; the defendant's counterclaim alleging plaintiff's negligence and non-disclosure was plainly unsustainable because the delay was caused by the defendant's failure to provide documents and by inaction of the defendant or his successor solicitors, and there was no credible causal link that the plaintiff's conduct caused the dismissal of the underlying action; accordingly the counterclaim was struck out.
12 Jun 2015

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

Citation

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2013

Metta's construction that exchange is due only five months after inspection is unmeritorious and would allow unilateral delay; Metta failed to produce evidence of a genuine misunderstanding or inability to exchange statements, and asserted discovery deficiencies and incomplete rectification works without particulars do not excuse non-compliance; accordingly an unless order is justified and the parties will be heard on its precise terms.
13 Mar 2014

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

Citation

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2013

The court held that (1) the Interim Order was valid and effective from 14 March 2012 because the inter partes Form 28 was filed and the judge on 20 March 2012 treated proceedings as Part IIA, so a Hadkinson bar against the Husband was justified; (2) the Husband was ordered not to be heard on his appeal until he paid HK$3,396,000 arrears and proceedings stayed pending payment, with dismissal if not paid within 14 days; (3) the Hadkinson application against the Mother was remitted to first instance to determine compliance with the Discovery Order; (4) the security for costs application was dism…
3 Nov 2005

SHENZHEN ENVIROTEC ELECTRONICS CO LTD v. CELLPLUS (HK) LTD

Citation

SHENZHEN ENVIROTEC ELECTRONICS CO LTD v. CELLPLUS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA786/2004

The court declined to make an immediate unless order and adjourned the summons to 2 December 2005 so the matter can be re-pleaded and considered after any comments by the Vice-President; costs were reserved.
8 Jun 1990

JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS

Citation

JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/1990

The judge below erred by failing to exercise his discretion to entertain the application to vary interlocutory orders; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and remitted the proceedings to the trial judge to determine whether and to what extent the orders should be varied.

Hong Kong Case Law

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

AU YEUNG, CHENG, HO & TIN (A FIRM) AND OTHERS v. AU YEUNG CHI SANG

JOSEPH LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (a firm) v. CHU SIU HOI

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

SHENZHEN ENVIROTEC ELECTRONICS CO LTD v. CELLPLUS (HK) LTD

JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS