Read the full judgment text of HCCT48/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 23 February 2001 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings involving Maybank acting for a banking syndicate and China Insurance as guarantor under a Performance Bond for a hotel redevelopment project at Tong Mei Road. The dispute concerns termination of the Development Agreement by UTIL and subsequent claims by Maybank against China Insurance for loss and damage. The defendant applied for further discovery of documents relevant to their pleaded defence that termination was 'unreasonable or vexatious' and principally for economic reasons rather than contractual breaches. The court considered the relevance, necessity, possession, and precision of the documents sought, concluding the application was justified and not a 'fishing expedition'. The plaintiff’s reciprocal discovery application was allowed only to the extent that the defendant must clarify by affidavit their position due to concerns on vagueness and custody of documents. The defendant successfully struck out the plaintiff’s claim for estimated additional construction costs on the basis that the site had remained idle for years and no new costs had been incurred, making the claim unsustainable. The court made orders accordingly, including detailed discovery directions and costs orders.
Legal issues: Order 24 discovery application relevance and necessity · Plaintiff's application for further discovery under Order 24 · Defendant’s strike out application under Order 18, rule 19
Outcome: Defendant's discovery application granted; defendant to provide affidavit as to plaintiff’s discovery application; plaintiff's claim for additional construction costs struck out.