BabelCite

Liu Ming v. Woo Ceong Hoi and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 204/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 March 2017.

1. I have two summonses for discovery before me. The first that I shall deal with is the petitioner’s summons dated 10 February 2017. When this matter came on before me the respondents agreed to an order in the terms of the summons, although they say that the large majority of the documents sought have already been disclosed by an earlier affirmation filed by Kevin Wong in these proceedings and the matter could have been disposed of by way of correspondence. The petitioner says that this is to m

Case No.HCCW 204/2016
Court
High Court CFI
Date01 Mar 2017
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 204/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING‑UP) NO 204 OF 2016

_________________

  IN THE MATTER OF Loyal Well (Hong Kong) Limited
 

and
  IN THE MATTER OF sections 724(1) and 725(2) of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622)
 

and
  IN THE MATTER OF section 177(1)(f) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)

_________________

BETWEEN
  LIU MING (廖明) Petitioner

and
  WOO CEONG HOI (胡長開) 1st Respondent
  WONG TZE YAN KEVIN (王子仁) 2nd Respondent
  LOYAL WELL (HONG KONG) LIMITED 3rd Respondent
  (興來 (香港) 有限公司)  

_________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 1 March 2017
Date of Decision: 1 March 2017

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.I have two summonses for discovery before me. The first that I shall deal with is the petitioner’s summons dated 10 February 2017. When this matter came on before me the respondents agreed to an order in the terms of the summons, although they say that the large majority of the documents sought have already been disclosed by an earlier affirmation filed by Kevin Wong in these proceedings and the matter could have been disposed of by way of correspondence. The petitioner says that this is to miscategorise the extent of the shortfall in the documents that have been provided. I will make an order in the terms of the summons and order that costs follow the event.

2.The 2nd summons was issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents on 17 November 2016 seeking banking documents in respect of deposits referred to in paragraph 34 of the petition.  The petitioner objects to discovery of those documents on the grounds that although the matter is raised by the petitioner in the petition, discovery of the bank records might incriminate the petitioner.  The petitioner has filed an affirmation dealing with this. 

3.In a dialogue with the Court Mr Joshua Choy, who appeared for the petitioner, said that he understood that this position invited the suggestion that the court should infer that the petitioner’s explanation for depositing money, which should have gone into the Company’s bank account into his own bank account, was bogus.  The petitioner is apparently subject to police investigations in respect of the payment.  In the circumstances, I proceed on the basis that the petitioner has demonstrated a real risk of incrimination and will not order discovery. 

4.There was also a discussion as to how costs should be dealt with.  The petitioner arguing that the petitioner had brought his position to the attention of the respondents by filing an affirmation and in without prejudice save as to costs correspondence.  Having looked at the correspondence it seems to me that the appropriate order is to order the withdrawal of the summons with no order as to costs.

(Jonathan Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Joshua Choy, instructed by Chan Ching Man & Co, for the petitioner

Mr Eric So of Ivan Tang & Co, for the 1st to 3rd respondents

Attendance of the Official Receiver was excused