Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2192/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 April 2013 before Kwan JA, Fok JA.
Civil procedure – discovery and inspection – production of documents referred to in an affidavit – O.24 rr.10, 11 and 13 of the Rules of the High Court – director's breach of duty claim – confidentiality club over settlement agreements – application by defendant to expand club to include insurer – insurer, XL Insurance – defendant referred to and quoted from insurance policy in affidavit – plaintiff applied under O.24 rr.10 and 11 for production of policy – whether judge applied correct legal test – two-stage inquiry – first, whether party referring to document shows good cause why production should not be ordered – second, under O.24 r.13, whether applicant shows production is necessary for fairly disposing of the cause or matter or for saving costs – O.24 r.13 confers broad discretion – Dynamic Way 'very unusual circumstances' expression confined to context of sealed envelopes in ex parte interlocutory injunction proceedings and not a general rule – grounds of resisting production not limited to relevance and privilege – Quilter v Heatly, Shun Kai Finance, Rubin v Expandable Ltd, Barr v Biffa Waste considered – Taylor v Anderton on 'disposing fairly' – judge entitled to assess degree of relevance or importance of document to cause or matter – whether judge's exercise of discretion flawed – consideration of whether defendant could have made application without reference to policy, collateral tactical advantage of production, and irrelevance to main action all properly relevant – prior inconsistent statements about insurance given little weight, within discretion – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed – costs to defendant.
Legal issues: Correct legal test for production of documents referred to in an affidavit under O.24 rr.10 and 13 · Whether the judge's exercise of discretion was flawed by taking irrelevant considerations into account and failing to give weight to relevant considerations
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Cites 1 case