FULL HERO ENTERPRISES LTD t/a 阿妹食店 v. ANRICH PROPERTIES LTD

cacv 124/2005

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 124 of 2005

(on appeal from HCA NO. 2913 OF 2000)

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers Acting CJHC:

1.  As far as I am concerned, in this case the judge was completely right and I do not see why this case came to the Court of Appeal. 

2.  This was an application before the judge for discovery.  The objection to giving the discovery, which was of a very limited extent and of no difficulty and no problem and no danger to the Defendants to give it, was that there had been an order by the master previously, refusing, effectively, the same discovery.  However, that had been made when the pleadings were different.  That had been made when the pleadings were that there was an express term in the lease and the question was whether the discovery was relevant to that.  The master decided it was not. 

3.  Now there is a pleading that there is an implied term.  Mr Lam, in this Court, says that that plea is unsustainable but, as was pointed out by the judge below, the Defendants have allowed that pleading to remain and, therefore, if the pleading has been allowed to remain, the issue is still alive and it is relevant.  If these documents concern the way the Defendant Landlord has dealt with other tenants in respect of similar tenancies then, in my view, the discovery should be given. 

4.  I think that this appeal was a complete waste of time and should never have been brought.  I have raised with counsel as to why it was brought and why time of six months has been wasted in coming to this Court.  I am seriously worried about the answers that I have been given and the statements which have been made from the Bar.

5.  In my view, this appeal falls to be dismissed.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

6.  I agree.