China Overseas Foundation Engineering Ltd. v. Hsin Chong (Foundations) Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT45/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 May 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Discovery — Specific discovery of documents — Construction and arbitration proceedings — Plaintiff seeks discovery of five categories of documents — Plaintiff abandons items 1, 2 and 3 — Court orders further particulars and production of documents for item 4 with allowance for redaction of confidential irrelevant information — Application for item 5 refused — Costs awarded such that defendant pays one third of plaintiff's costs. In these construction-related arbitration proceedings, the plaintiff applied for discovery of certain documents to support its claim. The court considered the submissions from counsel and made a partial order for discovery limited to employment-related documents with further particulars required, permitting editing for confidentiality. Other categories were not ordered for production. Costs were apportioned between parties accordingly.
Legal issues: Specific discovery of documents
Outcome: Partial order granting discovery as to item 4 with conditions; items 1, 2, 3 and 5 dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCCT000045/2000 HCCT45/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NOS.45 AND 54 OF 2000 ----------------------
----------------------- Coram: Hon Burrell J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 2 May 2001 Date of Decision: 2 May 2001 -------------------- D E C I S I O N -------------------- 1. By a summons dated 31 January 2001, the plaintiff seeks specific discovery of five categories of documents as set out in the schedule to the application. 2. Having heard submissions from Mr Timothy Hill, solicitor for the plaintiff and Mr Martin Downey, solicitor for the defendant, I make the following order :
Representation: Mr Timothy Hill of Messrs Lovells, for the Plaintiff Mr Martin Downey of Messrs Denton Wilde Sapte, for the Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case