Shine Grace Investment Ltd v. Citibank, N a
Read the full judgment text of HCCL 28/2008 on BabelCite. This HCCL judgment was delivered on 5 December 2014.
1. I am not satisfied that defendants have established there are reasonable prospects of success in their intended appeal against my exercise of discretion and case management powers in ordering the defendants’ discovery of documents which I considered to be relevant. Relevance is still determined by the wide Peruvian Guano test. In my view the documents sought to be disclosed are relevant to the issues of whether the plaintiff understood the relevant risks and was able to make an informed decis
Cites 1 case
|
HCCL 28/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMMERCIAL ACTION NO 28 OF 2008 ____________
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.I am not satisfied that defendants have established there are reasonable prospects of success in their intended appeal against my exercise of discretion and case management powers in ordering the defendants’ discovery of documents which I considered to be relevant. Relevance is still determined by the wide Peruvian Guano test. In my view the documents sought to be disclosed are relevant to the issues of whether the plaintiff understood the relevant risks and was able to make an informed decision about the subject contracts, which is the defence asserted. The order flow documents are also relevant in that they may, to say the least, lead to a train of inquiry as to whether there was collection of orders and aggressive marketing of the relevant contracts to the plaintiff (which is denied by defendants), and whether the defendants had induced the plaintiff to enter into the contracts. 2.The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed, with costs. 3.There is no justification or grounds to order any stay of execution.
Mr Jin Pao, instructed by Reed Smith Richards Butler, for the plaintiff Ms Donna Wacker, of Clifford Chance, for the defendants Please refer to HCMP3177/2014 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCL 28/2008