Wender Engineering Service Co. Ltd. v. Technic Construction Co. Ltd. and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCCT120/1997 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 5 July 2002 before Hon Ma J.
Construction Law — Discovery — Specific Discovery application under Order 24, rule 7 — Plaintiff seeking documents related to contractual status and quantum — Defendant's claim that some documents do not exist or have been provided, requiring verification on oath — Licence borrowing/lending arrangement between 1st and 2nd defendants affecting tender to ASD — Whether 1st Defendant must disclose documents requested. The court held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for discovery under the relevant rules, considering the documents' relevance and the defendant's possession or power over them. An order for disclosure was made and the defendant’s explanations had to be verified under oath in light of possible inaccuracies and amendments. The documents concerning the licence borrowing/lending arrangement must be disclosed as they are central to the issues in dispute.
Legal issues: Application for Specific Discovery under Order 24, rule 7
Outcome: Specific discovery ordered against the 1st defendant
Cited by 1 case
|
HCCT000120A/1997 HCCT120/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ------------------------
------------------------ Coram: Hon Ma J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 5 July 2002 Date of Decision: 5 July 2002 ------------------------- D E C I S I O N ------------------------- 1.This is an application for specific discovery by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant under Order 24, rule 7. The principles are well known : see paragraph 24/7/1 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2002, together with the important qualification of Order 24, rule 8. 2.In my judgment, the plaintiff has made out a case of prima facie relevance and prima facie possession, custody and power. The documents relate to what are perhaps the only two issues in the action, namely, the contractual status between the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the issue of quantum. 3.Mr Wu, for the 1st defendant, has explained to me this morning in relation to each of the categories sought that either the documents requested do not exist or have already been provided in discovery. In my judgment, this explanation should be verified on oath, particularly as it is indicated that certain matters hitherto deposed by his client, may be inaccurate. There is also the possibility of substantial amendments being made to the defence. 4.Lastly, I refer specifically to the documents requested under paragraph 14 of the revised Schedule. In paragraph 5 of the 5th affirmation of Chiu May Lin, Verona, it is said :
This means quite plainly that the 2nd defendant was acting on behalf of the 1st defendant as far as the Architectural Services Department was concerned. The correspondence between the plaintiff's solicitors, the 1st defendant's solicitors and the ASD confirms this as well. Mr Wu says that in fact the 2nd defendant was independent of the 1st defendant, and that in reality the main contract was between the ASD and the 2nd defendant. Whether or not the pleading will be amended to reflect this, on the evidence before me at this stage, the 1st defendant must disclose the documents requested.
Representation: Mr Anthony Chan, instructed by Messrs Siao, Wen & Leung, for the Plaintiff Mr Alfred Wu of Messrs Koo & Partners, for the 1st Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT120/1997