Achieve Goal Holdings Ltd v. Zhong Xin Ore Material Holding Co Ltd

HCA 1987/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1987 OF 2005

____________

____________

(By original action)

____________

(By counterclaim)

Before:  Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  19 December 2017

Date of Decision:  19 December 2017

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.In terms of the discovery summons, I am going to refuse it.

2.First and foremost, it is six months out of the time imposed by my previous order at a CMC.  The delay itself is sufficient to bar the relief.  I have indicated in this case, the time was important for a case of this scale and complexity.

3.This case is about whether Clarigain should have interest in the rest of the 50 per cent in the joint venture company, and whether Clarigain is barred by a settlement agreement from pursuing this claim. 

4.Achieve Goal and Angola seeks discovery of an agreement between Ma Maogen and one Mr Zhang Xintien, dated 17 May 2011.  The relevance is said to be this.  Clarigain’s witness, Madam Gao, referred to Zhang’s affirmation.  Clarigain does not intend to call Zhang as a witness, but intends to adduce his affirmation by way of hearsay.  Under Section 49(2) of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8), the court has to consider a number of factors before deciding whether to give weight to the hearsay evidence. 

5.Angola and Achieve Goal submits that the documents sought would be relevant to Section 49(2)(d) of the Evidence Ordinance, ie for challenging whether Zhang had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters. 

6.This discovery is, in my view, for a collateral purpose of attacking credibility, and, as submitted by Mr Wang, even this credibility issue will not touch on the core issue of the case as to interest in the shares between Zhong Xin and Angola.  The agreement sought to be discovered was in 2011, and there is no apparent purpose to be served by adducing such evidence at this stage.  Details of the sale of the shares between Zhang and another simply is not relevant to any part of the case at all.  I therefore dismiss the summons for discovery.

Mr Clark Wang, instructed by Kwok, Ng & Chan, for the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs (By counterclaim)

Mr James Man, instructed by Stevenson Wong & Co, for the 1^st and 2^nd defendants (By counterclaim)