Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-party disclosure

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2025

JIU RONG HOLDINGS LTD v. SIU CHI MING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1331/2023

The defendant failed to provide full particulars of assets as at 25 September 2023 (notably the Bank of China securities account balance and the Bank of China savings account balance as at that date); his explanations were inadequate and the omission persisted for over two years, warranting an unless order requiring a further affirmation by 12 December 2025 and the sanction of striking out the Defence if non‑compliant; costs to be paid by the defendant (order nisi and summary assessment).
7 Feb 2025

LLWL 對 MCM

Citation

[2025] HKCA 119
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2024

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's interlocutory appeal. The trial judge properly exercised her discretion in ordering limited disclosure from the non-party law firm because the respondent disclosed sufficient affidavits and evidence to establish prima facie grounds that the appellant received income beyond reported salary; the documents sought were in the firm's control and relevant to ancillary relief. Any omission to expressly refer to the appellant's opposing affidavit did not vitiate the discretionary exercise because the judge's role at this stage was to assess whether there…
29 Jul 2024

TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1242
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1139/2022

The court found the Non‑Party was likely to have the requested documents and those documents were relevant under the Peruvian Guano test; by putting into issue whether the Non‑Party had authority or instructions to make the settlement offer, the Defendant impliedly waived legal professional privilege as to those communications; accordingly disclosure by affidavit and production of the documents sought was ordered, with timing and costs directions.
21 Sept 2023

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2023] HKFC 193
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4633/2020

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the petitioner lacked a reasonable prospect of success: Rule 121(2) permits non-party applicants and therefore MRL, not the petitioner, was the proper applicant; the petitioner’s ‘‘two-stage’’ procedure was not pleaded and had no merit; the judge correctly exercised discretion by balancing confidentiality of family proceedings against the need for disclosure for criminal defence; no misdirection, irrelevant consideration or plain error was shown; accordingly leave was refused and costs ordered.
6 May 2019

WONG WAI WING v. MANG FAN LIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1498/2016

The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay: the plaintiff's application for leave to issue subpoenas was made at a stage (the morning of the first of seven trial days) that was too late and would prejudice parties and the court's preparation; therefore leave was refused without the court addressing the merits or relevance of the evidence sought.
15 Feb 2019

GLOBAL GAMING PHILIPPINES LLC v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL1/2017

The summons was dismissed: the court exercised its discretion under s42 HCO and Order 24 and held that (1) the documents are likely in the Philippines and compelling a foreign non‑party to produce documents abroad would encroach on Philippine sovereignty absent exceptional urgency; (2) Classes 1–2 (communications with DB) ought to be obtained from the defendant DBHK within the proceedings and therefore third‑party discovery is unnecessary; (3) Classes 3–4 are irrelevant to the discrete issue of whether Mr Razon instructed DBHK and amount to a fishing expedition; applying Peruvian Guano releva…
19 Jan 2017

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

The court held that each of the nine classes of documents sought met the relevance threshold under the Peruvian Guano test (with class-based consideration) and that disclosure from the Regulators was necessary for the fair disposal of the action; statutory secrecy under the SFO required a court order, which was granted subject to narrowing of class 8, with costs to the Regulators and costs of the application reserved between the parties.
11 Dec 2015

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP4/2011

The court held that the transfer documents (documents relating to share transfers, the SFC waiver and documents concerning the family arrangement) were sufficiently identified, likely to exist and in the possession, custody or power of the plaintiff or the named non-parties, and met the Peruvian Guano relevance and necessity tests; accordingly specific discovery was ordered in respect of those transfer documents (and a non-party disclosure order was granted against named respondents subject to specified deletions), the plaintiff's application relating to lost attendance notes was dismissed, a…
12 Feb 2010

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1520/2005

The appeal is dismissed because the specific discovery application was misconceived: the documents were not shown to be relevant to issues as pleaded at the time of the Master's decision and could be obtained from the plaintiffs; proposed amendments could not be relied on to establish relevance on appeal; thus no basis for specific discovery against the non-party and the Master's decision is upheld except that indemnity costs were not appropriate and were varied to common fund and party-to-party taxation orders.
15 May 2009

SMSE v. KL

Citation

SMSE v. KL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2009

The Court of Appeal granted a stay pending appeal because the judge below had granted leave to appeal on grounds that gave the appeal reasonable prospects of success, and because absent a stay the appeal would be rendered nugatory; further, disclosure would inflict irreparable and uncompensable commercial and privacy harm on a non-party company, justifying suspension of production under the subpoena pending appeal.