Further P failed to put forward a positive case in relation to some issues and

Further p failed to put forward a positive case in

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 34 pages.

Further, P failed to put forward a positive case in relation to some issues , and was attempting to fish out a case by seeking discovery of documents Chan Siu Lan v Union Medical Centre Limited 2008 Refused P’s application against the D hospital have contracted SARS, as P seek discovery in the hope that she could show that she had contracted SARS from the patients. The info is irrelevant as P would not be able to establish she had contracted SARS from them even if contact proved Necessity for disposing the case fairly or saving cost (O24r8 RHC&RDC) Three point test : Disclosure will be necessary if: ( Wallace Smith Trust Co. Ltd (in liquidation) v Deloitte Haskins & Sells and another 1996) (a) give “litigious advantage” to the party seeking inspection (b) the info sought is not otherwise available to the party (c) such order for disclosure would not be oppressive The test is to determine the question of “necessity” and not “relevance” (TullettPrebon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Chan Yeung Fong Nick & Ors 2011)
Image of page 16
Discovery procedure Summary 1. list of documents 2. general discovery 3. specific discovery 4. further and better list 5. failure to comply 5.1 List of Documents The list of documents is a list ONLY – the documents listed are NOT attached. (Form 26 Appendix A, O24 r5(1)) The list must enumerate the documents in a convenient order and as shortly as possible but describing each of them, or in the case of bundles of documents of the same nature, each bundle, sufficiently to enable it to be identified. Deemed Admission General Rule: a party served with a list of documents (or an affidavit/affirmation ordered in respect of a “specific discovery” application) is deemed to admit that (O27 r4(1) and 4(4)) Any document described as an original document is such a document and was printed, written, signed or executed as it purports respectively to have been Any document described as a copy is a true copy. Exception: Where the authenticity of a document is denied in a pleading of the party served with the list of documents or specific discovery affidavit/affirmation (O27 r4(1)) Where the party serve notice, within 21 days of the inspection / the deadline for inspection, saying it does NOT admit the authenticity of a document and requires it to be proved at trial (O27 r4(2)) If a party gives such a notice, the costs of proving that document must be paid by that party, unless the court otherwise orders (O62 r3(6)) List of Documents Preamble This contains statements describing the nature of the documents listed in Schedule 1 and 2. This confirms that the party/its solicitor do not have any other documents in their possession, custody or power other than listed in Schedule 1 and 2.
Image of page 17
Image of page 18

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 34 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Early case assessment, legal advice, Discovery

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture