3 Dec 2021
The court partially allowed H's summons: it re-amended and reinstated specific questions where proportionate and relevant, disallowed or narrowed requests that were too wide or fishing, required answers to be verified by statement of truth, reinstated FDR, and maintained the existing trial timetable because the court found the orders of 8 October 2021 achievable with reasonable diligence.
8 Jun 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the requested discovery and interrogatories were overbroad and unnecessary for disposing fairly of the matter or saving costs: the MLO defence related to an alleged loan from Zhou personally (not loans by PRC companies), existing disclosure and interrogatories already addressed Zhou's personal lending activities, and further probing into Zhou's positions in PRC companies would be fishing, disproportionate and likely to increase costs without advancing the real issues at trial.
5 Sept 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: there was insufficient prima facie evidence of concealment or dissipations to justify extended discovery of bank statements; the Table A request failed to specify documentary items requiring an O.24 r.7 affidavit; the 12‑month Form E period is not a fixed statutory minimum and sufficiency is fact dependent; and the obligation to seek joinder for beneficial ownership rested on the applicant, not the respondent.
29 Apr 2016
The court held that the 6 January 2016 dismissal did not operate as res judicata/issue estoppel because the Wife did not abandon the application; the Wife was entitled to file a fresh summons, but the Husband had already provided sufficient disclosure by way of his prior Answers, Annexure 3 balance sheets, bank and credit card statements and company confirmation; Questions 19 and 20 sought disproportionate, excessive and forensic-level elaboration and were therefore disallowed.
17 Aug 2015
Court held wife demonstrated sufficient relevance for Part B questions 5–11 arising from the respondent's forensic report and granted leave to issue a fourth supplemental questionnaire limited to those questions (answers within 28 days). Court refused orders to produce unredacted material in Parts A and D because redactions related to third parties and there was no basis to displace the respondent's oath about irrelevance. Part F was moot. Costs awarded on a 50% contribution basis by the respondent towards the wife's costs of the discovery application, nisi to be made absolute in 14 days if n…
24 Oct 2014
The court held that the plaintiffs failed the necessity and proportionality limbs for wide-ranging specific discovery; only the Minutes Book entry recording the 1 November 2009 resolution authorizing two managers to handle tenancy matters was relevant and necessary and therefore must be disclosed. All other discovery requests (other minutes, Accounts, Bank Statements, tenancy agreements) were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate. The defendants' application to admit a supplemental expert report was dismissed because the report was out of time, deviated from the court's express directio…
3 Jan 2014
The court refused the Wife's broad application for specific discovery of virtually all JHL documents and extensive explanations of numerous personal transactions as disproportionate and unnecessary at this stage, but directed the Husband to have his accountants explain the turnover discrepancy in writing within one month and ordered production of documents relating to the French proceedings (JLL SARL) within 14 days of receipt; credit card and outstanding bank statements already provided and costs to be in the cause (order nisi).
24 Jul 2001
Given the straightforward nature of the slipping case and the defendants' prior provision of Accident Reports, the court exercised its discretion to order limited additional disclosure (witness statements for items 1-4 and 6 in Part B) as proportionate and refused a wider order for disclosure of all incidents.