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.  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.