BabelCite

Hsin Chong (Foundations) Ltd. v. China Overseas Foundation Engineering Ltd.

Read the full judgment text of HCCT000054/2000, HCCT45/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 May 2001 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.

Construction and arbitration proceedings — specific discovery application — plaintiff sought production of five categories of documents — court declined to order discovery as to items 1, 2, 3 as not pursued — discovery granted for item 4 (employment contracts, timesheets, payment and salary records) subject to further particulars and confidentiality editing — discovery refused for banking records (item 5) — costs order apportioned with defendant to pay one third of plaintiff's costs. The decision balanced relevance and confidentiality concerns and reflected partial success on both sides on specific discovery application, with consequential costs order.

Legal issues: Whether to order specific discovery of requested documents · Costs order relating to discovery application

Outcome: Specific discovery partially granted for employment-related documents with particulars and edited production; application dismissed for other categories; costs order made.

Case No.HCCT000054/2000, HCCT45/2000
Court
高等法院原訟法庭
Date02 May 2001
JudgeHon Burrell J in Chambers
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCT000054/2000

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

----------------------

BETWEEN
CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
HSIN CHONG (FOUNDATIONS) LIMITED Defendant
----------------------
AND BETWEEN HCCT54/2000
HSIN CHONG (FOUNDATIONS) LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LIMITED Defendant

-----------------------

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 :

1. Items 1, 2 and 3 of the schedule are not pursued by the plaintiff and so no order is made.

2. In respect of item 4, namely "Employment contracts, timesheets, payment records and salary records" :

(i) The defendant shall provide further, further and better particulars detailing its claim and answering the requests made in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of Messrs Lovells' letter dated 5 March 2001.

(ii) Further, the defendant shall produce documents in support of 2(i) above. Where the documents in support of the particulars provided under 2(i) above contain other confidential information which is not relevant to this action, it may be edited accordingly. Where editing takes place, copies of the edited documents shall be produced.

3. In respect of item 5, namely Banking records etc., the plaintiff's application is dismissed.

4. Both parties having addressed the court on the question of costs, I make the following order. One third of the plaintiff's costs of and arising from this application shall be paid by the defendant.

(M.P. Burrell)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Mr Timothy Hill of Messrs Lovells, for the Plaintiff

Mr Martin Downey of Messrs Denton Wilde Sapte, for the Defendant