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 25 June 2015 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings — specific discovery application dismissed by exercise of discretion and case management powers — appellate court’s interference with discretion limited to legal misdirection, factual errors, or irrelevant consideration — plaintiff’s arguments on relevance and necessity rejected previously and on appeal — no misdirection or error by trial judge found — leave to appeal refused with costs to defendant.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal against discretionary case management order
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused with costs to defendant
Cited by 2 cases
|
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.The order that I made on 21 May 2015 dismissing the plaintiff’s application for specific discovery is an order made on the exercise of my discretion and in the exercise of my case management powers. 2.In any appeal against an exercise of the judge’s discretion, the authorities are clear that the ambit of the appellate court’s interference is restricted. The Court of Appeal will not intervene unless the appellant can show that the judge had misdirected himself with regard to the legal principles in accordance with which his discretion had to be exercised, or had misapprehended material facts, or had taken into account irrelevant matters, or failed to take relevant matters into account, such that the judge’s conclusion was plainly wrong, and outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible. 3.The plaintiff’s arguments in this case on relevance and necessity were rejected. Essentially, the same arguments are sought to be made on the appeal. 4.Having heard counsel on the proposed grounds of appeal, I am not satisfied that I have exercised my discretion under wrong principles of law. This is an application for leave to appeal, and it is not the occasion for me to add to, elaborate or vary the reasons, and I will not do so. The factors taken into consideration in the exercise of my discretion have all been set out in my Decision, and I am not persuaded that they are irrelevant, or that any relevant matter had not been taken into account. 5.I am not satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success on the plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, and leave to appeal is accordingly refused with costs to the defendant.
Mr Nicholas Cooney, SC, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, for the plaintiff Miss Christine Mak, of J Chan, Yip, So & Partners, for the defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 21/2014