Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Discovery scope

  • 22 Mar 2017

    NEW SMART CREDIT SERVICE LTD v. K&L GATES (a firm of solicitors)

    Citation
    NEW SMART CREDIT SERVICE LTD v. K&L GATES (a firm of solicitors)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1116/2011

    Plaintiffs caused an adjournment by filing problematic drafts and only later accepted the Defendant's legitimate concerns about the reference to Other Transactions; because the Defendant reasonably opposed the amendments pending clarification, the costs of both amendment hearings and of and occasioned by the amendments must be borne by the Plaintiffs; certificate for counsel was awarded and payment need not be immediate given Plaintiffs' difficulties.

  • 4 Jun 2014

    JIN WEI CHENG v. UBS AG

    Citation
    JIN WEI CHENG v. UBS AG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA632/2012

    The court exercised its discretion to permit defendant UBS to obtain discovery and to administer interrogatories limited to the plaintiff's investment accounts (not general banking accounts) and trading activities in those accounts during the Relevant Period, including whether such accounts were discretionary, how authority was granted and whether hold‑mail arrangements existed, because those matters are directly relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded investment experience, risk appetite and the issue of authorisation; the discovery sought is proportionate and not unduly intrusive and the plaint…

  • 21 Jan 2008

    SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC AND ANOTHER v. SUPREME FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC AND ANOTHER v. SUPREME FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV410/2007

    The court approved a negotiated, restrained approach: limit pre-trial discovery to specific particulars necessary to determine liability; tailor Anton Piller orders to require only specific supplier/customer details and sample invoices/orders; stay certain prior obligations; dismiss the notice of appeal of the 1st and 3rd defendants; and order that interlocutory costs be costs in the cause, thereby resolving the stay application by specific directed undertakings rather than granting a broad stay.