Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Production order

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2021

CHEUNG KONG PROPERTY (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2021

The court granted a narrowly tailored one-week interim injunction because fairness required the plaintiff time to test defendants' late-filed and redacted evidence on alleged completion and novation. The judge balanced the public and commercial interests, found no unacceptable prejudice to defendants from a short restraint, ordered production of specified exhibited documents by a fixed deadline, and adjourned the summons to 12 March 2021 for further hearing. The restraint is subject to the ROFR Deed trigger provisions and the plaintiff's exercise or waiver of its right of first refusal.
27 Aug 2019

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3819/2011

The respondents' proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable; consequently the interlocutory summons was dismissed and costs were awarded against the respondents. Even if leave to appeal were required, it would not be granted given the lack of arguable grounds.
14 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP115/2016

Where the police, after being alerted more than once to a jurisdictional defect (wrong party/wrong premises) and to inadequate particulars of police video evidence, persisted without amending the originating summons or providing adequate particulars, the court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs to the affected respondent (i-CABLE); by contrast costs followed the event for other respondents with party and party taxation and certificates as specified.
14 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/2016

The judge exercised discretion to award indemnity costs to i-CABLE because the applicant, after being explicitly alerted to a jurisdictional defect (failure to specify premises under s84), did not amend or reissue the OS and failed to provide adequate particulars about police videos despite having relied on precedent requiring such particulars; although there was no finding of improper motive, the applicant's conduct made indemnity costs appropriate.
14 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. I-CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. I-CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP119/2016

Judge exercised discretion to award costs following the event to TVB, Apple Daily and PCCW on party-and-party basis (with certificates as requested) and awarded indemnity costs to i-CABLE because the applicant, despite being alerted to a clear jurisdictional defect (failure to specify premises) and lacking adequate disclosure regarding police videos, failed to issue a fresh OS or properly amend the OS and thereby unreasonably continued the application against i-CABLE.
14 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP118/2016

The judge exercised discretion to award indemnity costs to i-CABLE because the applicant, despite being alerted to a jurisdictional defect (failure to specify premises where journalistic material was located) and given opportunity to amend, proceeded without issuing a fresh or properly amended originating summons and failed to provide adequate particulars of police video materials; these circumstances rendered indemnity costs appropriate.
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP115/2016

The applications for production orders were dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove that the requested unedited footage (as redefined to footage of Tsang up to his escort away from Tamar Park) was of substantial value to investigation or relevant evidence in the proceedings (s84(3)(a)(iii)); other access conditions were not met in material respects (including proper specification of premises for i-CABLE); the identity/personal particulars of makers do not qualify as 'journalistic material' under s82 and so cannot be ordered under s84; and on a public interest balancing exercise, produ…
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP118/2016

The court refused all production orders because the applicant failed to satisfy section 84(3)(a)(iii) that the requested unedited recordings were likely to be of substantial value to the investigation or relevant evidence in proceedings (scope was overbroad and much material was already public or obtainable by alternative means), the applicant misconceived the scope of s84 in seeking maker identities (those particulars are not 'journalistic material' under s82), and service/premises requirements were not met as to i-CABLE; on balancing the public interest the production orders were not justif…
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP120/2016

Production orders were refused because the applicant failed to satisfy s84(3)(a)(iii) that the unedited footage sought was of substantial value to the investigation or necessary as relevant evidence (general Tamar Park footage and post‑assault footage were irrelevant or too wide), the identities of makers do not constitute 'journalistic material' under s82 and therefore cannot be ordered under s84, and in respect of i-CABLE there was a service/premises defect; on public interest balancing the fact the material was in the public domain and offers to authenticate by TVB made disclosure unnecess…
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. I-CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. I-CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP119/2016

The applications for production orders were dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy section 84(3)(a)(iii) that the requested unedited recordings were of substantial value to the investigations or relevant evidence for the offences (and the scope was overbroad), other methods to obtain material existed or police footage was available, and because identity/personal particulars of makers do not constitute "journalistic material" under section 82; public interest balancing weighed against making orders, particularly where material was already in the public domain and offers to attest to…