Read the full judgment text of HCCT000040/1996 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 19 May 1998 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Procedure — Civil discovery — Whether further and better discovery justified under Order 24 — Large volume commercial litigation documents — Application dismissed. The plaintiff in construction litigation sought orders under Order 24 that the defendant’s managing director make an affidavit of discovery and that a further and better list of documents be served. The defendant had disclosed 182 bundles mainly comprising original files, and plaintiff complained of missing supporting documents, missing enclosures in transmittal files, and listing errors. The court applied the principle from O Co. v M Co that discovery must be connected to issues, and excessive discovery leads to unnecessary cost. Despite imperfections in discovery, the defendant's disclosure was honest and reasonable, and plaintiff failed to establish serious prejudice or necessity for further orders. The court dismissed the application and ordered costs against the plaintiff. This case underscores the court's emphasis on proportionality and relevance in discovery to balance fairness and cost in complex commercial disputes.
Legal issues: Necessity for further and better discovery · Assessment of missing documents and listing errors
Outcome: Application for further discovery dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs of the application