Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of disclosure

Legal area

Court

2 Jul 2025

LAU MO CHOI v. LAU MUK FAT (as the Manager of Lau Shau Wo Tso ‘劉壽和祖’)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1263/2012

The Settlement Agreement is prima facie relevant to the assessment of expenses under the Agreement for Sharing Liabilities because settlement sums attributable to litigation concerning completion and defects of the Houses (pleaded in paras 6(10) and 6(11)-(14)) can reduce the liabilities to be shared; the without prejudice rule does not apply because the subject matter of the present assessment (allocation of expenses) differs from the Defendant-WKW settlement subject matter such that without prejudice privilege does not prevent disclosure; accordingly the Master order is set aside and a limi…
31 Aug 2021

CHINA ENERGY RESERVE AND CHEMICALS GROUP OVERSEAS CO LTD v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP384/2021

Requirements (1)-(3) were satisfied but the class of documents sought was overbroad; only documents directly relevant to alleged breaches in two defined short periods (4 Dec 2019–24 Jan 2020 and 11 Feb 2021–26 Feb 2021) met the statutory threshold. Pre-action discovery was nevertheless necessary for fair disposal and saving costs limited to that narrowed scope; privileged material excluded; production to be completed within 35 days and use restricted to commencing/pursuing proceedings against the Bank.
19 Jan 2021

CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY JEWELRY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP704/2018

The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants manufactured the infringing goods or retained undisclosed inventories or manufacturing materials; therefore no contempt for failure to deliver up or disclose suppliers was made out. However, the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants failed to disclose specific recipients and related documents in breach of paragraph 2(b) of the Consent Order and paragraph 5(b) of the Consent Judgment (and consequently paragraph 6 of the Consent Judgment) in relation to certain sales/offers (notably item…
15 May 2019

ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L P AND OTHERS v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1812/2016

The court ordered limited post-petition discovery because documents from 19 July 2016 to 30 April 2020 are sufficiently relevant to the pleaded allegation that the petition was presented for a collateral purpose and may reinforce the pre-petition evidence; the order was confined and tailored to balance the utility of disclosure against the burden under RHC O 24 r 8(2), with a staged timetable, liberty to apply and costs ordered nisi for the Directors.
29 Mar 2019

MCLARENS HONG KONG LTD v. POON CHI FAI, COREY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA514/2019

The court adjourned the matter to substantive hearing but granted amended interim undertakings sufficient to ring‑fence interests: accepting class‑based preambles rather than itemised particulars, requiring cloning of computers/external drives and deposit of clones with Supervising Solicitors, copying then deleting digital copies from originating equipment, replacing the word 'equipment' with 'digital copies' in §6, setting compliance deadline at 5pm on 18 April 2019, and declining to require a separate undertaking from D10 because that would unfairly expose it to breach by events beyond its…
30 Aug 2016

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

The court exercised its discretion to limit the scope of the discovery order. It found no justification to direct disclosure to any other parties beyond those relevant to the pleaded issues and replaced the word 'another' in paragraph 50 with (i) the 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff or Yew; and/or (ii) bank accounts held or controlled by the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff or Yew. The court ordered compliance within 7 days and declined to expand discovery as sought by the 1st defendant because that would be a fishing expedition and impose undue burden at an advanced stage of proceedings.
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…
6 Nov 2015

CHINA ART BANK CO LTD v. XU ZHIQIANG

Citation

CHINA ART BANK CO LTD v. XU ZHIQIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2543/2015

The court exercised its discretion to maintain the disclosure order because of serious fraud allegations, forged documents and an ongoing police investigation; however disclosure was confined to assets subject to the Mareva injunction (Hong Kong and Macau) because the court will not order disclosure of assets outside the injunction's scope; applications to increase living and legal expenses were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
18 Jun 2014

HHWT v. PYGG

Citation

HHWT v. PYGG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1010/2014

Leave to appeal refused because the respondent failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the Deputy Judge was correct to set aside the writs of subpoena as excessively wide and failing to identify persons who provided payments/gifts, and correct that the proper person to be served with the subpoena was the Trustee not the applicants; prior partial production of documents did not cure these defects.
4 Apr 2002

David Electrical Engineering Ltd. v. Billy Lok & Partners General Contractors Ltd.

Citation

David Electrical Engineering Ltd. v. Billy Lok & Partners General Contractors Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ12458/2001

The court ordered limited specific discovery: the defendant must produce letters or documents evidencing final payment to all the defendant's nominated and other subcontractors that evidence the alleged consensus/agreement referred to in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the defence, because those documents are relevant and proportional to the issue; broader discovery was refused as disproportionate to the modest claim.