Zhu Qiying v. 妹記蔬菜批發
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 664/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 25 April 2018.
1. By a summons filed on 6 April 2018, the applicant applies for an order requiring China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited (“CM”) to disclose documents showing all the personal information (including but not limited to the postal address) of the registered user of 2 specified mobile numbers (“the 1 st mobile number” and “the 2 nd mobile number”). The summons is supported by an affirmation made by the applicant and filed together with the summons.
Cites 1 case
|
DCEC 664/2017 [2018] HKDC 454 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 664 OF 2017 --------------------------
-------------------------- Before: His Honour Judge MK Liu in Chambers (Open to public) Date of Hearing: 25 April 2018 Date of Decision: 25 April 2018 --------------------- DECISION ---------------------- 1.By a summons filed on 6 April 2018, the applicant applies for an order requiring China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited (“CM”) to disclose documents showing all the personal information (including but not limited to the postal address) of the registered user of 2 specified mobile numbers (“the 1st mobile number” and “the 2nd mobile number”). The summons is supported by an affirmation made by the applicant and filed together with the summons. 2.The summons and the supporting affirmation have been duly served on CM. Background 3.I would first set out the background facts. 4.In this case, the applicant is seeking employee’s compensation from the respondent in respect of an accident occurred on 9 May 2015. The applicant’s case is that on 4 May 2015, she started to work for the respondent. On 9 May 2015, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment was caused to her. The applicant is unable to proceed further in these proceedings, for the respondent is merely a trading name, and the identity of the person (“the employer”) using this trading name is not yet known. The purpose of this application is to reveal the identity of the employer. 5.According to the applicant, she found the job on 4 May 2015 by calling the 1st mobile number, which was a number written on a recruitment notice posted on the shopfront of the main shop and on the shopfront of the branch shop of the respondent. The female answering the applicant’s call holding herself out as “老闆娘” of the respondent. The voice of that female was same as the voice of the female boss whom the applicant met during her employment. On 9 May 2015, after the accident, the applicant found the 2nd mobile number on the recruitment notice outside the main shop and the branch shop of the respondent. 6.The applicant’s solicitors have made some enquiries. It is now known that CM is the service provider in relation to the 1st mobile number and the 2nd mobile number. However, CM would only be able to disclose the information of the registered user(s) of these 2 numbers to the applicant if there is permission from the customer(s) or if there is a court order directing them to do so. Analysis 7.In the summons, it is stated that the application is made under ss 21(4) and 21(5) and the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (“ECAO”), Order 24 rule 7 of the Rules of the District Court (“RDC”) and inherent jurisdiction of this court. With respect, ECAO s 21 cannot be the correct statutory provision for the purpose of this application. ECAO s 21 concerns matters relating to an application for payment from the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (“the Board”). The applicant now is aiming at finding out the identity of the employer and to pursue against the employer. Hence, ECAO s 21 is not relevant. Further, RDC Order 24 rule 7 also cannot be the correct statutory provision, for that rule concerns discovery against a party in the proceedings. Obviously, CM is not a party in these proceedings. In respect of inherent jurisdiction, this court is created by statutes and has limited jurisdiction. No authority has been cited to me showing that this court has inherent jurisdiction in making a discovery order against a non-party. In these circumstances, it would be better for me to leave the question of inherent jurisdiction open. 8.However, the court is not confined by the sections and the rules set out by the applicant in the summons. Providing that there are some other statutory provisions conferring the relevant jurisdiction on this court, I may make the order sought by the applicant in the summons or a similar order. See Premier Fashion Wears Ltd and Broadway Sportwear Ltd v Chow Cheuk Man [1994] 1 HKLR 377 (CA). In my view, the statutory provisions set out below have conferred the relevant jurisdiction on this court:-
9.With these provisions in mind, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to have a discovery order against CM, but the scope of the discovery should be narrower than the one set out in the summons.
10.It is understandable that CM can only provide the information to the applicant under a court order in the absence of any permission from their own customer(s). This application is not opposed by CM. In my view, costs of this application (including costs incurred by CM in compliance of the court order) should be paid by the applicant to CM, to be taxed if not agreed. Disposition 11.For the reasons above, I make the following order:-
12.I thank Ms Wong for the assistance rendered to the court.
Ms P Y Wong of K Y Woo & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the applicant China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited, was not represented and did not appear | ||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment