Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Relevance test

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2013

THE LONDON SPEAKER BUREAU LTD v. THOMSON TAM

Citation

THE LONDON SPEAKER BUREAU LTD v. THOMSON TAM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1812/2012

The defendant failed to satisfy Order 24 rule 3 because he did not demonstrate that the requested documents exist, relate to matters in issue, or are in the plaintiff's possession, custody or power; the requests were too wide and general; consequently the master’s dismissal of the application was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
19 May 2000

WORLDTRADE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. STARWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

WORLDTRADE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. STARWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA450/2000

The concealed parts (price, payment terms and specified deduction) are relevant to the validity and enforceability of the licence and therefore to liability under the wide Peruvian Guano relevance test; confidentiality alone does not justify non-disclosure because the implied undertaking protects against collateral misuse, and Auto-Treasure does not bar disclosure where the material is relevant to liability; accordingly the Plaintiffs must disclose the redacted parts and the Court will decide terms and costs.