Happy Dynasty Holdings Ltd v. China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 21/2014 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 May 2015 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Construction law — Contract formation — Whether a binding agreement was made following a meeting and an email dated 27 June — Discovery application refused — Documents requested relating to credit and credibility not relevant or necessary — Discovery after CJR aimed at fair and cost-effective trial — Subcontracts awarded to third party, plaintiff’s claim of agreement rejected — Application for discovery refused with costs to defendant.
Legal issues: Existence of binding agreement
Outcome: Application for discovery refused on grounds of necessity; costs awarded to defendant
Cites 1 case
|
HCCT 21/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 21 OF 2014 ____________
____________
_____________ DECISION 1.I will be very brief in my decision. 2.Having heard submissions from counsel, for which I thank them, the only real issue for determination at trial is whether or not there was a binding agreement made between the parties as a result of the meeting and the email of 27 June. It is not in dispute that the subcontracts in question were not awarded to the plaintiff. If there was a binding agreement, the defendant was in breach in awarding the subcontracts to a third party. Why it did so is irrelevant to the question of breach. I am not satisfied that the documents sought by the plaintiff are necessary for the determination of this main issue at trial, of whether or not there was an agreement made. 3.I am not satisfied that the documents identified in items 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the summons are relevant to the matters in question. Documents which relate purely to credit, and to impeach the credit or credibility of the opposing party will not be ordered. 4.Even if the documents identified in the Schedule can, in any way, be said to be relevant in the wide Peruvian sense, I am not satisfied, in view of the pleadings, the issues which are in dispute, and the discovery already made by the defendant, that they are necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause, or for saving costs. 5.Post CJR, discovery should be aimed and restricted to facilitate an effective trial of the matter without unnecessary costs. On the ground of necessity, I would refuse this application, with costs to the defendant.
Mr Nicholas Cooney, SC, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, for the plaintiff Mr Paul Lam, SC, instructed by J Chan, Yip, So & Partners, for the defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 21/2014