Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

List of documents

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2017

LI YUEN YAM AND ANOTHER v. GRANT GAZDIG

Citation

LI YUEN YAM AND ANOTHER v. GRANT GAZDIG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ21/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed out of time with no application for extension; the further evidence was inadmissible under Order 58 r1(4) as it did not relate to matters after the order and no special grounds were shown; the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good reason for non‑compliance with the unless order and had not obtained relief from the sanction under Order 2 r4, so the appeal could not be heard.
11 Dec 2012

WONG KWAI SANG v. CHEUNG WAI MING TURBO

Citation

WONG KWAI SANG v. CHEUNG WAI MING TURBO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1726/2009

Registrar accepted plaintiff's undisputed evidence that he could not access his property until 13 September 2012, found the nine day delay for the list of documents was short and excused by extraneous circumstances, applied the post-CJR Hytec approach and RHC O.2 r.5 factors holistically, granted leave to file the list within 7 days and extended time to serve witness statements with liberty for defendant to serve supplemental statements within 21 days; costs to be in the plaintiff's cause.
29 Jan 2007

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR

Citation

CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMSHED SAFDAR
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ586/2006

The hard drive and forensic images are discoverable because they contain documents and retrieved deleted files that relate to issues in the case and the defendant waived privilege by relying on the forensic report; discovery is confined to documents relating to matters in question; PR Newswire articles are excluded as non-confidential; accordingly the defendant must file a further and better list incorporating the Schedule items insofar as they relate to matters in question and must verify that list by affidavit.
29 Dec 2006

ALLAHA DITTA v. RODNEY ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

ALLAHA DITTA v. RODNEY ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI981/2005

The application for specific discovery was not premature under Order 24 r7; the plaintiff must make a sworn affidavit within 14 days stating whether specified post-accident earning records exist and, if denying possession of the narrowed private medical records referred to by Dr Tsoi, must similarly swear to their non-existence before the court will dismiss discovery on those items.
18 May 2002

CHARLES TSU YEW WONG AND ANOTHER v. BERMUDA TRUST (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

CHARLES TSU YEW WONG AND ANOTHER v. BERMUDA TRUST (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10631/1998

Items 7–11 comprise diverse administration documents not "of the same nature"; given the nature and issues of the breach of trust action and the modern requirements of Order 24 r 5(1), the defendant must properly identify those files by enumerating and describing each document and stating whether each is an original or a copy; the court has no discretion to refuse to order compliance when the list is inadequate.
28 Nov 2001

CHIU PUI WAN AND ANOTEHR v. CHAN SAI WING t/a PHILIP S. W. CHAN & CO.

Citation

CHIU PUI WAN AND ANOTEHR v. CHAN SAI WING t/a PHILIP S. W. CHAN & CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA330/2001

The court found the defendant satisfied the O.24 r.7(1) criteria (existence, possession/past possession, relevance to a contested issue—causation—and necessity for fair disposal/saving costs); accordingly the court exercised its discretion to grant the orders sought, subject to narrowing the schedule by replacing "letters, note, and any other documents" with "correspondence and documents relating to any payment".
2 Mar 1998

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8721/1996

The Master's order was varied and partially set aside because (a) notices to the Companies Registry necessarily implicate dates of appointment and therefore the corresponding board and general meeting minutes are relevant and must be discovered for items (8) and (9); and (b) discovery of documents relating to brands (items (11) and (12)) is premature until the pleadings are particularised to identify which brands are disputed, so those items of the Master's order are set aside; costs were ordered in light of the parties' relative success.
24 Jan 1996

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA250/1991

The court ordered Galco to make and file the specified list of documents and make them available for inspection; granted leave to file the hearsay notice out of time but awarded costs to Kader (including a counsel certificate) because Galco was at fault in the late filing; dismissed Galco's summons to produce the laboratory reports because Kader had validly asserted legal professional privilege on the dominant purpose basis and awarded Kader costs (including a counsel certificate); the strike-out application was adjourned.
26 Jun 1989

SHAILAIN HIRACHAND JHAVERI t/a KIRAN DIAMONDS v. JAYANTILAL CHUNILAL JHAVERI AND OTHERS

Citation

SHAILAIN HIRACHAND JHAVERI t/a KIRAN DIAMONDS v. JAYANTILAL CHUNILAL JHAVERI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1237/1988

Leave to withdraw the appeal was granted without prejudice to the plaintiff re-applying for a further and better list of documents or for specific discovery; costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.
21 Aug 1986

RE Y, A SOLICITOR

Citation

RE Y, A SOLICITOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2040/1985

Given the facts, the judge concluded that although there were serious procedural failures and disturbing conduct, the circumstances did not warrant ordering the solicitor to pay costs personally; the court entered judgment for the plaintiff but discharged the solicitor from personal liability for costs and referred the matters to senior judicial and professional bodies for study rather than disciplinary action.