Mclarens Hong Kong Ltd v. Poon Chi Fai, Corey and Others

HCA 514/2019

[2019] HKCFI 874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 514 OF 2019

______________

______________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.I am satisfied that the matters should be adjourned for substantive hearing, and that in the balance of fairness, parties’ interest can adequately be ring-fenced and safeguarded in the meantime by appropriate undertakings from the Ds.

2.Parties cannot fully agree on the terms of the undertakings.  My rulings on the disputed issues are as follows.

3.In terms of the preambles to the undertakings offered by Ds, I am satisfied that those excepted information is better described by the class which they belong, as proposed in Mr Caloran’s draft, rather than through setting out their exact details as suggested by Mr Wright.  The attempt to pursue precision through setting out details is prone to mistake, which should best be avoided.

4.I am prepared to give Ds till 5pm on 18 April 2019 to comply with paragraphs 4 and 5.  As submitted by Mr Lee, Ds will need technical assistance from experts.  Further, I see no great urgency in P being informed of the matters contemplated by §§4 and 5.  The proposed deadline is a reasonable one.

5.In terms of §5: 

(a) the first three lines will remain the same;

(b) after hereof on the 3^rd line, there be added:

“Any computers, external hard drives and other equipment in which digital copies of such documents are stored shall, in so far as technically possible, cloned first, with D1 to D9’s undertaking that such clones be deposited with the Supervising Solicitors and not be tempered with. All digital copies of such documents in such computers, external hard drives and other equipment be then copied and delivered to the Supervising Solicitors, and then deleted from those computers, external hard drives and other equipment.”

6.In terms of §6, the word “equipment” be replaced with “digital copies”.  

7.Having conducted the exercise of balance of fairness, I am satisfied that the undertakings are sufficient to safeguard and ringfence interests.  I see no additional need for D10 to give a separate undertaking.  That undertaking will unfairly expose it to breach by events which it cannot fully control.

8.I will hear parties on the directions on evidence.

Mr Colin Wright, instructed by Tanner De Witt, for the plaintiff

Mr Thomas Lee, instructed by Gall, for the 1^st to 9^th defendants

Mr Paul Carolan, instructed by Hugill & Ip, for 10^th defendant