Wong Pui Yin Georgeanna (As the Administratrix of the Estate of Wong Cecilia Pui Luen, Deceased) v. Cheer Creation Ltd and Another

HCMP 801/2022 and HCMP 802/2022
(HEARD TOGETHER)

[2025] HKCFI 901

HCMP 801/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 801 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

AND  

HCMP 802/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 802 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

(HEARD TOGETHER)

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 24 June 2022 the Plaintiff issued originating summonses in these two proceedings and sought in [4] an order that:

“An Order pursuant to Section 21L of the High Court Ordinance and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court against the 2^nd Defendant for the delivery up and return of all statutory books, records and other documents of the 1^st Defendant in the 2^nd Defendant’s power, possession and/or custody to the 1^st Defendant by delivering to the Plaintiff, as newly appointed director of the 1^st Defendant, forthwith.”

2.In the circumstances, described in my decision dated 24 January 2025 the Plaintiff agreed to discontinue the proceedings against the 2^nd Defendant.  The only issue that needed to be determined by the Court was who was to pay the costs.

3.For the reasons contained in my short decision I determined that the 2^nd Defendant should pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the relevant proceedings such costs to be taxed if not agreed with a certificate for counsel.  The 2^nd Defendant has now issued summonses in both proceedings seeking leave to appeal the costs orders to the Court of Appeal.

4.In short, two principal grounds appear to be advanced in support of the 2^nd Defendant’s case that my decision was plainly wrong.  The first relates to whether or not it can be said that the Plaintiff was substantially successful in obtaining the documents sought in [4] of the originating summonses.  The complaint here seems to be that my decision does not analyse precisely what was sought in the originating summonses and precisely what was obtained in order to reach the decision that I did.

5.This seems to me to be a rather arid point, as [4] sought amongst other things “other documents” of the Company and the suggestion that the records that were provided were not the property of the Company, seems to me to be entirely artificial.  It was plain what the Plaintiff sought, why she sought them and that she received documents of the sort that she wanted.

6.The second relates to whether or not the Plaintiff should have reached its decision to discontinue the application earlier.  It seems to me that the Plaintiff’s decision was reasonable and I can see no sensible reason for thinking the Court of Appeal might conclude that my reasons and conclusions were sufficiently bad that the Court of Appeal should interfere with my decision.

7.I, therefore, dismiss the two summonses and I will make an order that the 2^nd Defendant pays the Plaintiff’s costs forthwith with a certificate for counsel such costs be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Byron Chiu, instructed by Tsang, Chan & Wong, for the Plaintiff (in both actions)

Mr Shaun Elijah Tan, instructed by Keith Lam Lau & Chan, for the 2^nd Defendant (in both actions)

The 1^st Defendant was not represented and did not appear (in HCMP 801/2022)

The 1^st Defendant was not represented and did not appear (in HCMP 802/2022)