Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interrogatories (order 26)

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2018

TANG KOON MING v. KIN WING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC129/2017

The court held the interrogatories application was premature and unreasonably short in proposed timeframe but, having regard to the effort expended and voluntary provision of answers, ordered costs of the interrogatories to be in the cause; the application to compel a joint medical examination was refused because no expert directions had been given and the parties had proceeded prematurely regarding expert appointment; the parties were both at fault for arranging the joint exam early and therefore costs should reflect that shared responsibility; the disputed cancellation fee was resolved by a…
9 Sept 2009

HUANG PING, OWEN v. BURSWOOD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUANG PING, OWEN v. BURSWOOD LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5239/2008

Insufficient evidence that the writ was validly served at the Shun Tak Office (no proof it was a place of business for defendants), Hong Kong is not the clearly appropriate forum for the dispute (Australia is), and no reasonable cause of action is pleaded against Crown Ltd; accordingly the court set aside service, found it lacked jurisdiction on those grounds, allowed the Order 12 application, and dismissed the action and the interlocutory applications (Order 21, Order 26, Order 14).
18 May 2009

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1587/2006

The court held that the conveyances and definition of common parts were not shown to be ambiguous such that subsequent conduct would be admissible to interpret them; interrogatories 1 and 2, which sought evidence of subsequent use, were therefore irrelevant and must be withdrawn; interrogatory 3, seeking documents to determine what was conveyed (whether flat roofs were assigned), was relevant and must be answered by the deadlines ordered; the supplemental witness statement was inadmissible and refused; costs were ordered as set out.
11 Mar 2009

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1957/2005

Leave was granted because the authenticity of the audited accounts for 2001–2005 was a live, contested issue justifying a formal challenge under Order 27 r 4(2); the interrogatories were permitted under Order 26 r 4 because they were relevant to explaining discrepancies between trial balances and audited accounts and were not shown to be prejudicial or to necessarily create admissions for limitation purposes; the supplemental witness statements were permitted because the alleged loans were relevant to the issues in dispute. Costs were awarded to the Wu Yi Parties on an order nisi basis.
22 Jan 2009

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1294/2005

The court held that the plaintiff established that the matters sought in the further particulars and most interrogatories were relevant to the genuineness of the Lucky Dragon Agreement and must be answered; the 5th defendant must supply specified particulars and answer all outstanding interrogatories except interrogatory 20 within 35 days, failing which its defence will be struck out and plaintiff may enter judgment; interrogatory 20 was impermissible and refused; questions of section 60(3) are relevant but the 5th defendant must first provide particulars and answers to allow determination of…
23 Oct 2003

SILVERLINK (HONG KONG) FINANCE LTD v. ZHANG SABINE SOI FAN AND OTHERS

Citation

SILVERLINK (HONG KONG) FINANCE LTD v. ZHANG SABINE SOI FAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2783/1998

The court exercised discretion to allow the 3rd defendant to amend its defence to plead contributory negligence and causation particulars because those matters are relevant to negligent misrepresentation and causation; specific discovery from the plaintiff of targeted documents concerning funding arrangements and due diligence was ordered as necessary and prima facie in the plaintiff's possession; production of remaining draft security documents was refused as unnecessary and unlikely to affect outcome; a number of interrogatories were ordered to be withdrawn as fishing or unnecessary while o…
11 Jun 1999

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise v. Golden Science Technology Ltd. and Others

Citation

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise v. Golden Science Technology Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1999

The application for cross-examination and for leave to administer interrogatories was refused because both would require the Court of Appeal to undertake first-instance fact-finding going to the merits and credibility of witnesses; such procedures are inappropriate at the appellate stage and credibility should not be resolved by an appellate panel; interrogatories remain available under Order 26 but should be pursued at first instance or renewed before the judges hearing the appeal if necessary.

Hong Kong Case Law

TANG KOON MING v. KIN WING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

HUANG PING, OWEN v. BURSWOOD LTD AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS

SILVERLINK (HONG KONG) FINANCE LTD v. ZHANG SABINE SOI FAN AND OTHERS

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise v. Golden Science Technology Ltd. and Others