Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Specific discovery (order 24)

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2015

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 applied the Order 24 prerequisites and the Peruvian Guano relevance test, granted specific discovery for numerous identified classes where plaintiffs showed prima facie existence, relevance and defendants' possession or control, refused requests where documents were not shown to be in plaintiffs' control (Essence bank records) or lacked evidential materiality (certain Teeka board items), and directed an inter partes timetable for the injunctive application rather than granting interim relief on the papers.
15 Jul 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2013

Plaintiff's applications for further particulars, discovery and production were dismissed because affidavits did not stand as pleadings, the requests were fishing for evidence and not necessary at the interlocutory stage, and the court exercised case management to refuse premature, duplicative or unnecessary orders; requests for injunctions, contempt findings, declaratory relief, summary judgment and freezing order were similarly dismissed as premature, unsupported or duplicative pending the substantive hearing of the defendant's strike-out summons; costs follow event and a costs order nisi w…
11 Jan 2013

WONG LONG HIN v. KWAN TAI ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG LONG HIN v. KWAN TAI ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2020/2011

Plaintiff's discovery application for broad classes of documents (items 1–4) was refused because the applicant failed to show with sufficient particularity that the documents sought were necessary, non-fishing and limited to relevant material for proving quantum; defendants' application for discovery from the plaintiff (GDE audited accounts 2001–2010 and payroll/bonus records) was granted because those documents are relevant to the core issue of employment relationship and the plaintiff's use of GDE to receive payments; plaintiff's amendment was allowed by consent; costs of both summonses awa…
13 Jul 2011

LEHMAN & CO MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEHMAN & CO MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW377/2010

The court refused the petitioner's application under s152FA because petitioner failed to satisfy the composite requirement of acting in good faith for a proper purpose given delay, prior nominee director conduct, and evidence of fishing/harassment; even if jurisdiction existed the court would have exercised its discretion against the application. Specific discovery requests were largely disallowed as overbroad, unnecessary or already met by disclosed audited accounts and schedules; a few narrowly defined classes on the cross‑petitioner summons required further affidavit(s) but most classes we…

Hong Kong Case Law

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

WONG LONG HIN v. KWAN TAI ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

LEHMAN & CO MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER