Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Document discovery

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2005

OLDHAM LI & NIE (A SOLICITORS FIRM) v. ROBERT WILLIAM HONG SAN YUNG

Citation

OLDHAM LI & NIE (A SOLICITORS FIRM) v. ROBERT WILLIAM HONG SAN YUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1202/2005

Order discovery for plaintiff's banking and trust account records showing net proceeds of the Mercedes sale because those records are likely to exist and are directly relevant; refuse discovery of the Assignment, outstanding invoice, payment documents and plaintiff's letter because plaintiff does not possess them, their relevance to reduction of the debt is insufficiently established, and the requests are vague or speculative.
18 Jan 2002

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10752/1998

Apply broad Peruvian relevance subject to proportionality; documents are discoverable if they relate to matters in question, existence and power to produce are evidenced, and enclosures to produced letters are prima facie relevant; architects and certain consultants in the project were treated as agents of the employer so many documents in their hands are within defendants' power and ordered for discovery, subject to limits and amendments specified item-by-item; costs ordered nisi to plaintiff in any event.
30 Nov 2000

MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

Citation

MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV433/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the question involved a point of great general and public importance as required by s.22(1) Cap.484; the application was without merit and amounted to an abuse of process.
6 Jun 1997

SOCIETE GENERALE v. HANIL BANK

Citation

SOCIETE GENERALE v. HANIL BANK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL12/1992

The court refused the plaintiff's application for wide-ranging discovery on the basis that the defendants' state of knowledge was not an issue in the pleadings and so much of the requested material lacked probative value; the court granted limited discovery confined to four specified categories of documents but only in respect of the six letters of credit the subject of the actions, ordered discovery by list verified by affidavit and required an affirmation from a responsible officer, and ordered that the plaintiff pay 50% of the defendants' costs of the applications, taxed if not agreed.
29 May 1995

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

Citation

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA320/1991

The judge declined to make a costs order against Kader and refused to penalise Galco despite delay; the appropriate remedy was to order that the costs of the summons (and of the earlier 4 April 1995 hearing) be in the cause, no further orders on the summons were necessary at that time, and further review and listing directions should be pursued toward the end of July 1995 with potential trial dates to be sought for January 1996.
6 Dec 1991

MAN WON CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TAY VI BING AND OTHERS

Citation

MAN WON CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TAY VI BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2553/1989

Where a plaintiff has an arguable case that multiple defendants misappropriated property in concert, documents relating to those defendants' finances (for example bank statements over a material period) are discoverable if it is reasonable to suppose they might show, or lead to piecing together, a pattern of dealings between the defendants which would shed useful light on the allegation of misappropriation in concert.

Hong Kong Case Law

OLDHAM LI & NIE (A SOLICITORS FIRM) v. ROBERT WILLIAM HONG SAN YUNG

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER

MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

SOCIETE GENERALE v. HANIL BANK

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

MAN WON CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TAY VI BING AND OTHERS