Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance of documents

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

TOP EMINENT HEALTHCARE GROUP LIMITED (formerly known as CLSA PREMIUM LTD and KVB KUNLUN FINANCIAL GROUP LTD) AND OTHERS v. BANCLOGIX SYSTEM CO LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1416/2019

The application for specific discovery was dismissed solely on the ground of inordinate delay because it was issued unacceptably late before the discovery deadline and trial, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given, and requiring further discovery at that stage would be unfair and disruptive to the plaintiffs' trial preparation; the court declined to rule on relevance to avoid prejudging the trial.
18 Dec 2025

BANCLOGIX SYSTEM CO LTD v. TOP EMINENT HEALTHCARE GROUP LTD (formerly known as CLSA PREMIUM LTD and KVB KUNLUN FINANCIAL GROUP LTD)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA452/2020

The summons for specific discovery is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay by the defendant; there was no satisfactory explanation for the late issuance of the summons and granting the application at this late stage would unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs and disrupt trial preparation, therefore dismissal is warranted without determining relevance.
13 May 2021

SARAS GOPI ALSO KNOWN AS SARASWATHI GOPALAKRISHNAN v. BINA DEEGAN ALSO KNOWN AS BINA CUNNINGHAM ALSO KNOWN AS BINA GOPI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1588
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3075/2015

The court conducted an item-by-item case management ruling: discovery granted for specific categories (UK wills relevant to jewellery claim but not funds; Withers and certain advisers' correspondence relevant; Indian will relevant; title deeds and nominee forms subject to narrowing; lease/receipts for quantum; discrete ITE share transfer documents and audited financials 2007-present; pleadings/affidavits from prior proceedings); discovery refused for broad bank account statements and sales proceeds documents where Peruvian Guano relevance not established; redacted previously disclosed documen…
28 Apr 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VICTORIA CENTRE v. LEE TAK FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 244
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3431/2017

The defendants failed to establish the jurisdictional prerequisites for specific discovery in respect of Categories 1 and 2 because they did not show a prima facie existence or possession of the broad classes of notices and incident reports sought; although Categories 3–5 arguably exist and are in the plaintiff's possession, the defendants failed to show relevance or necessity because their pleaded defence lacked particulars, the requests were overbroad and amounted to a fishing expedition, and disclosure would not be necessary for fair disposal or saving costs; accordingly the application fo…
4 Nov 2019

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2017

The Contested Documents are relevant and necessary to the defendants' pleaded defence on quantum; plaintiff failed to deny their existence on affidavit; accordingly plaintiff must file an affidavit stating whether it has the Contested Documents and produce them where held; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs assessed summarily with a certificate for counsel.
3 Apr 2019

VITALY ORLOV v. MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1331/2017

The court applied the established prima facie test for specific discovery and refused discovery where relevance to pleaded issues was not shown (notably documents evidencing sale of Katla to MTF). The court allowed a narrowly framed order limited to disclosure of advice from Stephenson Harwood (but not broader instruction materials beyond what was necessary to understand that advice), holding that instructions and advice were relevant given those allegations and that solicitor affidavits are not determinative at interlocutory stage where there is reason to believe further relevant documents e…
18 Oct 2017

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW170/2016

The court limited discovery to documents directly relevant to the pleaded complaints of wrongful removal of books and alleged misappropriations in the period identified in the petitions (principally Feb–Mar 2016 and related records through 30 April 2016). Documents after April 2016 and broader fishing‑expedition requests were refused. The respondents must affirm they have disclosed documents in categories 1 and 3 and must disclose bank statements or passbooks for identified accounts and accounting records (vouchers, invoices, receipts, payment slips, bank instructions) for 1 January 2016 to 3…
18 Oct 2017

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW172/2016

Court declined broad, post-April 2016 discovery as irrelevant and a fishing expedition, but granted targeted discovery necessary to reconcile the alleged misappropriations pleaded in the petitions: directed disclosure of bank statements/passbooks for specified accounts for the relevant period, required affirmations from respondents confirming disclosure of documents in categories 1 and 3 in their possession, and ordered verification of accounting records and vouchers for 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016; apportioned costs against respondents (20%).
18 Oct 2017

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW171/2016

The court limited discovery to documents relevant to the pleaded complaints (principally the alleged misappropriations in Feb–Mar 2016 and wrongful exclusion from management). The respondents were ordered to file affirmations confirming disclosure of documents in categories 1 and 3 in their possession/custody/power, to produce bank statements or passbooks for specified accounts (identified in the judgment) for the relevant period up to April 2016, and to file an affirmation listing accounting records (vouchers, invoices, receipts, payment slips and bank instructions) for 1 Jan 2016 to 30 Apr…
14 Jul 2016

MARTNOK THANRADEE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARTNOK THANRADEE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA789/2011

The discovery application was dismissed because the defendants had already admitted that the Board notified the police on 19 April 2006 and the material sought was therefore not necessary or meaningfully probative; the Application Form was shown to be in the police file at relevant times, so disclosure would not alter the evidential position. The plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the application with legal aid taxation of the plaintiff's own costs; hearing time of 35 minutes is apportioned to the application.