To Kan Chi And Others v Pui Man Yau And Others

Cited as:[1998] 2 HKLRD 104
Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMV11/1998
Judgment Date:07 Jul 1998
FAMV000011/1998 TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS v. PUI MAN YAU AND OTHERS

FAMV No. 11 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 11 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV 117 OF 1998)

____________________

Between :
TO KAN CHI
TO FUK TIM
TO KAM CHAU
as managers of the TO KA YI TSO
1st Plaintiffs
(Applicants)
and
TO CHEONG LAM
TO SIU LAM
TO MEI LUN
TO MAN HING
TO MUK TAI
(as representatives of the TO CLAN)
2nd Plaintiffs
(Applicants)
AND
PUI MAN YAU alias SIK KWOK WAH 1st Defendant
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Defendant
CHAN YAT SAN
LAU WONG FAT
HO SUN WING
3rd Defendants
THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS INCORPORATED 4th Defendant
PUI MAN YAU alias SIK KWOK WAH
the personal representative of
TAT ON, the deceased
5th Defendant

____________________

Appeal Committee : Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Ching PJ

Date of Hearing : 7 July 1998

Date of Determination : 7 July 1998

_____________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

_____________________________

Mr Justice Litton, PJ (giving the determination of the Appeal Committee):

1. This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal concerns a trial currently taking place in the Court of First Instance before Yam J. That trial had commenced in March 1997 before the late Jerome Chan J and started afresh in March this year before Yam J because of Jerome Chan J's untimely death. It has been going on ever since.

2. In May this year, whilst the trial was into its second month, the plaintiffs caused five subpoenas duces tecum to be issued, directed to five government departments, requiring a total of 32 files and their contents to be produced. Those departments applied through counsel to have the subpoenas discharged on the broad ground that their issue was contrary to established legal principles. Yam J determined the matter against the departments concerned and by his order of 12 May 1998 dismissed the application. The departments appealed to the Court of Appeal against Yam J's order. By its judgment dated 18 June 1998 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the subpoenas be discharged. The plaintiffs then applied to the Court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial