Read the full judgment text of CACV 000179/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 February 1995 before Nazareth, V.-P., J. Chan and P. Cheung, JJ..
Civil procedure – discovery – specific discovery – relevance – documents relating to matters extraneous to central issue – whether party can dictate relevance by simply pleading matter – Court of Appeal allowing appeal against order for specific discovery. Civil procedure – pleadings – irrelevant allegations – whether mere denial or joinder on pleadings suffices to bring relevance to an otherwise irrelevant allegation. The plaintiffs, minority shareholders in the 1st defendant (a First Pacific Group company), sued for $10m under an alleged oral agreement said to have been made on 2 August 1993 at a special general meeting called to vote on a Proposal to cancel the minority shareholdings for cash. The defendants denied the agreement and pleaded that the only $10m proposal discussed was a separate proposal by David Chiu to settle three outstanding disputes: (i) settlement of HCA No. A8215 of 1988, (ii) reinstatement of the 5th plaintiff and David Chiu as directors of the 1st defendant, and (iii) allegations of mismanagement. The defendants sought specific discovery of documents concerning these three matters, and Deputy Judge Jones granted the order. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the deputy judge had misapprehended the defendants' case, since the defendants' pleaded case was not that the $10m was intended to cover all outstanding matters including the Proposal, but that the $10m was solely for settling the three other disputes. The court held that the mere fact an issue is raised in pleadings is not determinative of relevance; following Martin and Miles v. Scrib [1950] 67 RPC 127 and adopting para. 4.13, p. 49 of Matthews and Malek's 'Discovery', discovery is not required of documents which relate to irrelevant allegations in pleadings which even if substantiated could not affect the result of the action. The plaintiffs' alleged oral agreement to secure minority votes and the defendants' alleged separate discussion of settling three other disputes were totally different and unconnected discussions, and the latter could not affect the existence or otherwise of the former. The court further held that a party cannot dictate relevance by simply pleading a matter, and the failure of the opposing party to strike out an irrelevant pleading does not bar the point being taken on a discovery application. The wide basis of relevance propounded by Brett L.J. in the Peruvian Guano case [1882] 11 QBD 55 did not assist the respondents in the particular context. Appeal allowed; order of Deputy Judge Jones set aside insofar as it related to items 5 and 8; order nisi set aside the costs order below; appellants to have their costs of the appeal and of the summons below.
Legal issues: Whether specific discovery should be ordered for documents relating to allegedly extraneous matters raised in pleadings
Outcome: Appeal allowed; order of Deputy Judge Jones set aside in relation to items 5 and 8 of the schedule to the summons.
Cited by 1 case