Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevancy of documents

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2007

CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS

Citation

CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA342/2006

Documents relating only to the credibility of a party and not to the matters in question do not satisfy Order 24 rule 7's requirement that the documents 'relate to one or more of the matters in question'; accordingly there was no jurisdiction to order specific discovery of the second class of documents and the appeal is dismissed with costs (order nisi).
13 Feb 2007

L v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

L v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA659/2005

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the requested police guidelines were relevant to the pleaded issues (no pleaded failure to comply with guidelines), so there was no basis under O.24 r.7 to order disclosure; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, disclosure was unnecessary because the Defendant had made extensive relevant disclosure and the request was a fishing expedition; costs awarded to the Defendant.
7 Nov 2003

CHEUNG PAK CHI CECILIA v. CHU WING LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG PAK CHI CECILIA v. CHU WING LUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3122/2000

The Master held that the Documents Sought are relevant and discoverable because they relate to two matters in issue: (a) whether the contract ought to be or has been rescinded under Misrepresentation Ordinance s3(2) (which requires the court to consider losses when deciding whether to award damages in lieu of rescission), and (b) the 2nd Defendant's claimed damages/quantum; jurisdictional prerequisites for discovery were met and it was appropriate to exercise discretion to order specific discovery and a further and better list within 14 days.
4 Nov 1981

DEAK AND COMPANY (FAR EAST) LTD v. N.M. ROTHSCHILD AND SONS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DEAK AND COMPANY (FAR EAST) LTD v. N.M. ROTHSCHILD AND SONS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/1981

The Court refused discovery for items 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 because the requests either did not identify a class of documents by nature, lacked a prima facie case of relevancy or content, were overbroad/fishing and/or would be oppressive; the Court allowed discovery of item 17 only to the extent of minutes relating to the matters in question (May 1969–March 1974) and refused item 18 for being non‑specific and too wide; a without prejudice memorandum could be inspected for ancillary purposes but it did not assist the decision.

Hong Kong Case Law

CLUB ACE LTD AND ANOTHER v. PANG KIN SHING, MICHAEL AND OTHERS

L v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CHEUNG PAK CHI CECILIA v. CHU WING LUNG AND ANOTHER

DEAK AND COMPANY (FAR EAST) LTD v. N.M. ROTHSCHILD AND SONS LTD AND OTHERS