Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1658/2015 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 August 2015 before Hon Lam VP, Barma JA.
Procedure — Specific Discovery — Discretion to refuse discovery — Peruvian Guano test applied — Leave to appeal refused — Relevance and necessity of documents — Whether judge’s exercise of discretion was clearly wrong — Court of Appeal affirms refusal of discovery on ground that documents are neither relevant nor necessary to dispose fairly of the cause or save costs. The case concerns an application for leave to appeal against a decision refusing specific discovery relating to whether there was a binding agreement between the parties following a meeting and email in June 2013. The Judge in charge of the Construction and Arbitration List declined discovery, applying the Peruvian Guano test and concluding the documents sought were not relevant or necessary. The Court of Appeal held that the decision to refuse discovery is largely discretionary and will only be overturned if clearly wrong. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of principle or misapplication of the test. The documents sought related largely to credit or internal analysis, which did not advance the plaintiff’s case. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered indemnity costs of HK$86,128 against the plaintiff, citing the need to discourage hopeless leave applications.
Legal issues: Discretionary exercise in specific discovery applications
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant indemnity costs
Cites 2 cases