XCHRX ALEXINA INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. KEYSBERG LTD. AND OTHERS

HCA6359/1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.6359 OF 1992

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is a heavy piece of litigation and it has been on-going for some time. There is an Unless Order made by Master Chan on 27 July 2000 for further discovery, attached to that Unless Order are 6 items in the schedule.

2. In compliance with that Unless Order, two affidavits had been sworn by the plaintiffs' side, one by Teresa Comley on 24 July 2000 and one by Patanjali Subramani on 2 August 2000. There may be inadequacy in these affidavits but I do not form the view as contended by the defendants that the inadequacy are such as to lead to the drastic draconian remedy of the action being struck out as sought by the defendants in the summons which they had taken out dated 12 September 2000. I think looking at the matter overall, I cannot form the view that these affidavits are so illusory and so defiant of the Unless Order as to be deserving of the sanction of having the action struck out.

3. Having regard to the fact that a second part of the application under Order 24, rule 16 would be made by the defendants for further relief, I will refrain from saying too much as to the details of the merits of the discovery or of the affidavits filed in compliance with the Unless Order.

4. My judgment is that the application of the defendants under paragraph 2 of the summons is to be dismissed.

5. So far as the costs of the application are concerned, having regard to the fact that there is a second part of the application to be made, I order that the matter of costs should be reserved until after I heard the further application.