Sum Mun Kid Frederick v. Auto Italia Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 60/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 October 2017.

1. There are in existence disclosure orders made against the 1 st Defendant, the 2 nd Defendant and the 3 rd Defendant designed to elicit the whereabouts of the LaFerrari, which is an unique and highly valuable piece of property as well as the subject matter of these proceedings.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 60/2017
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 Oct 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 60/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 60 OF 2017

________________________

BETWEEN
  SUM Mun Kid Frederick Plaintiff
and
  Auto Italia Limited 1st Defendant
  TSANG Ling Kay Rodney 2nd Defendant
  Fringe Global Investments Limited 3rd Defendant
  Ever Bless Investments Limited 4th Defendant

_______________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 13 October 2017
Date of Decision: 13 October 2017
Date of Reasons for Decision: 13 October 2017

______________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

______________________________________________

1.There are in existence disclosure orders made against the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant designed to elicit the whereabouts of the LaFerrari, which is an unique and highly valuable piece of property as well as the subject matter of these proceedings.

2.Regrettably, none of these orders has produced any real hint as to where the LaFerrari is.  I have to say, in fairness to the 3rd Defendant, that I understand that the orders have not been served on it.

3.The evidence before the court is quite disturbing. It appears that there is a concerted effort by various parties to try to hide from the court, and thereby frustrating the disclosure orders, as to the whereabouts of the LaFerrari.  With respect, the alleged sale or re-sale of the LaFerrari is, on the available evidence, difficult to believe due to, inter alia, the vast undervalue at which it was purportedly sold and re-sold.  There is clearly urgency in the matter, which was accepted by DHCJ Keith and DHCJ Francis. The urgency remains.  In particular, the property has still not been located and the orders which were made by the court have been frustrated.  

4.In these circumstances, there is justification for making a further disclosure order as requested by the Plaintiff.  Hence, I have made the order pursuant to the Summons before me dated 10 October 2017 with amendments.

  (Anthony Chan)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Simon Westbrook SC and Mr Robin D’Souza, instructed by Alan Lam Yam & Pe, for the Plaintiff

Mr Bronson Chan of Howse Williams Bowers, for the 1st Defendant

Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Wong, Fung & Co, for the 2nd Defendant

The 3rd Defendant was not represented and did not appear