HAPPY DYNASTY HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD

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.