XCHRX YIP KU v. KWAN KUK LIN

HCMC 5/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an application by the Respondent for a large number of information. The trial of this Action started on 23rd November 1998. The case was set down on 7th May 1998 by Deputy Judge of Lugar-Mawson in which he made an order that there would be no further questionnaire without leave of the court. The history of the matter is that there had be a great deal of Questionnaires and Answers and many disputes over the Questionnaires and Answers. I am supposed to be the Trial Judge and the date fixed by Deputy Judge Lugar-Mawson to start the trial, I think, was on 23rd or 18th November 1998. There were two pre-trial reviews, the first one in October and the second one, I believe in the early part of November 1998.

2. There was a Summons when the trial started on 23rd November with a very long opening. On 30th November 1998, the present Summons was issued returnable on 2nd December 1998, and so it can be seen that the Summons was issued 1 week after the trial started and long after the order made by the Deputy Judge Lugar-Mawson that there would be no further Questionnaire. There was also a history leading to the issue of the Summons. The history of the correspondence was referred to in the argument, namely letters of 24th November, (two letters from the Petitioner's solicitors to Respondent's solicitors), letter of 1st December and then subsequently after Summons was issued also the letter of 7th December and 11th December, both from M/s. Tommy Lai & Co. to the other side's solicitors.

3. I think it can be readily seen from this chronology that the application was made much too late and it should have been much made much much earlier, and certainly should not have been made, some one week or ten days after the trial started. The Petitioner is now acting in person, having run out of the money and the solicitors and Counsel including Leading Counsel, who were representing him throughout had left the case on 11th December 1998. The Petitioner is a simple person with no knowledge of English and little schooling even in Chinese.

4. It is extremely difficult for the Petitioner to conduct this case, and this is particularly the case having regard to the heavy nature of this case which is a series of complex commercial matters stretching over long period and ranging over large number of companies and many properties with large volume of documents. So I must have regard to the fact that the Petitioner is acting in person with no legal knowledge and no knowledge of English language, and thus at this juncture of proceedings I must ensure that whatever request be made against him, it is not oppressive or exceptionally wide ranging, or to hinder him in the proper conduct on his case.

5. The 31 items of information sought in what we call Table 3 are wide, extensive and require the Petitioner to do substantial and difficult work and are in many respects, oppressive and not essential in the present circumstances of the case.

6. I left out items 32 to 41 in Table 3 because they were not covered by the Summons and the supporting affidavit. Therefore I left them out of account. I think in the special circumstances of the case, that I should accede to only those parts of items in Table 3, which are not just merely relevant but which are of significance and of necessity to the trial and most important of all to the fair disposal of this protracted trial.

7. In exercising my discretion, I of course have regard to all the circumstances and particularly to the submissions made to me by Miss Leong and to whatever little point which Mr. Yip could manage to put forward. Many of the items sought are, of course, matters which the Petitioner might not able to give answer to, either easily from memory or by simple effort. Examples of these will be documents from 3rd parties. At the trial, if these are essential documents, the Respondent can of course subpeona the relevant people and seek the information in whatever usual way is permitted by the rules of court.

8. What is important for me to bear in mind is that the trial should proceed as quickly as possible, having already been delayed so many times by these last minute applications. I think in these circumstances, therefore, having regard to what I have said earlier, my order in the exercise of my discretion in relation to Table 3 is as follows:

That is my order.