LU CHENG TE RAYMOND v. WU WING YAN

DCMP 1990/2025

[2025] HKDC 1129

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1990 OF 2025

(IN THE MATTER OF PRE-ACTION DISCOVERY)

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

------------------------------

REASONS FOR DECISION

------------------------------

Introduction

1.  By an Originating Summons (in expedited form) filed on 8 April 2025 (the “OS”), the Plaintiff applies for pre-action discovery against the Defendant (the “Application”), pursuant to sections 47D and 47E of the District Court Ordinance, Cap 336 (the “DCO”).

2.  At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 May 2025, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s OS and ordered that costs of the OS be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.

3.  I now give my reasons for my decision.

Relevant Background

4.  By the Application, the Plaintiff seeks discovery of all medical and dental records / documents of Lu Chu Anita Fuk Wah (“Madam Lu”), from 10 September 2024 to 6 April 2025, in the Defendant’s possession.

5.  According to the very helpful submissions[1] of Mr Arnold Lam, Government Counsel, for the Defendant, this Court has been informed that:-

(1)  The Plaintiff is the son of Madam Lu;

(2)  Madam Lu is the subject of a Guardianship Order dated 10 September 2024 under the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136;

(3)  The Director of Social Welfare has been appointed as Madam Lu’s guardian since 10 September 2024; and

(4)  The Defendant is the delegated public guardian and caseworker of the Regional Guardianship Office (Hong Kong Island) of the Social Welfare Department and is the individual who handles the matters of Madam Lu in accordance with the said Guardianship Order.

The Hearing

6.  Notwithstanding the Application being made by the Plaintiff himself, the Plaintiff completely failed to attend the hearing on 13 May 2025. No communication was made by the Plaintiff to the Court, or to the Defendant, as to the reason(s) for his absence.

7.  With the exception of the OS, the Plaintiff has not filed any affidavit evidence or submissions in these proceedings setting out or explaining the present Application at all.

8.  Order 29, rule 7A(3) of the Rules of the District Court, requires applications which are brought under section 47D of the DCO to be supported by affidavit and which must specify or describe the property in respect of which the order is sought and show, if practicable by reference to any pleading served or intended to be served in the proceedings or subsequent proceedings, that it is property which is or may become the subject-matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises or may arise in the proceedings.

9.  Owing to the complete lack of affidavit evidence and/or submissions filed by the Plaintiff, as well as his failure to attend the scheduled hearing of the OS, this Court remains completely unaware of the legal basis and/or rational behind the Plaintiff’s Application or how the Application and order sought by the Plaintiff falls within the scope of sections 47D and/or 47E DCO.

10.  The OS simply sets out a bare request for the disclosure order in the terms set out at §4 hereinabove. No mention or explanation has ever been provided by the Plaintiff as to what proceedings, or even what potential cause(s) of action, the disclosures sought in the Application may relate or be relevant to.

11.  Further, Mr Lam has confirmed to the Court that neither the Defendant nor the Social Welfare Department are in possession of any of the documents requested by the Plaintiff.

12.  In the premises, the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s OS, together with an order for costs, is fully justified.