Read the full judgment text of HCCT 43/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 13 May 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Order 24 rules 3 and 7 — Requirements for specific discovery — Necessity and relevance — Separate contracts and parties — Valuation disputes — Evidence — Fishing expeditions — Pleading requirements — Costs. This case concerns an application by KH FOUNDATIONS LIMITED for specific discovery against CHUN YIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED relating to documents under a works contract and a management contract for a residential development project. The court analysed the principles governing discovery and emphasized the need for a prima facie case supported by affidavit evidence as required under Order 24 rule 7. The court found requests seeking payment applications and certificates under a separate Management Contract irrelevant and unnecessary, as the valuation of works under the Contract would be conducted independently by an expert. Broad requests for communications and internal documents relating to alleged supplemental agreements and liquidated damages calculations were refused as speculative fishing expeditions lacking specificity or relevance. Discovery requests relating to contract negotiations and compliance with procedural contract clauses were rejected for irrelevance or lack of pleaded waiver. Consequently, the court refused all discovery orders sought and made a costs order against the Plaintiff, awarding 70% of Defendant’s costs with a certificate for one counsel.
Legal issues: Necessity and scope of specific discovery under Order 24 rule 7 · Relevance and necessity of payment applications and certificates under separate Management Contract · Claim for discovery of broad communications and internal records · Relevance of Architect’s assessments under separate contracts · Application for discovery of contract negotiations · Discovery relating to compliance with GCC Clause 30(1) and 36(5) · Necessity of discovery for supplemental agreement minimizing Defendant’s liability
Outcome: Plaintiff’s application for discovery refused in entirety; Plaintiff ordered to pay 70% of Defendant’s costs with certificate for one counsel.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases