Read the full judgment text of FCMC 12184/2021 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 22 May 2025 before Her Honour Judge Elaine Liu.
Matrimonial proceedings – Discovery – Injunction – Valuation – Section 17 Summons – Relevance – Possession – Costs – Petitioner TYP and 1st Respondent CWY separated around 2013-2015, decree nisi granted 2022. 1st Respondent filed Summonses seeking discovery of financial statements for B Limited (2001-2015) and M Limited (2005-2024), injunction to restrain transfer of B Property and HL Property, and appointment of single joint expert for valuation. 2nd Respondent TCP joined proceedings. Court held discovery applications dismissed as documents beyond 7 years not necessarily in possession; relevance of 2001-2005 statements not shown; no prima facie evidence of Petitioner's entitlement to M Limited profits. Injunction dismissed as property belongs to company not party; no evidence of dissipation; Petitioner has no proprietary interest; claim compensable in money; no undertaking as to damages. Valuation dismissed as premature for ancillary relief dispute. Costs awarded to Petitioner and 2nd Respondent on party and party basis with certificate for counsel due to 1,400 page bundles and lack of clarity in arguments. The court applied Order 24 rule 7 requiring prima facie case of existence, relevance, and possession. Relevance tested by Peruvian Guano test. Court noted R2 voluntarily disclosed 2006-2014 statements. R1 failed to show how 2001-2005 statements relevant to value of Transferred B Shares. R1 failed to show P had beneficial interest in M Limited or HL Property. Injunction principles from CCL aka L, CC v JRC aka C, JR (Injunction) [2021] HKFLR 202 applied. Balance of convenience favoured refusal.
Legal issues: Discovery Summons · Injunction Summons · Valuation Summons
Outcome: The two Discovery Summonses and the Injunction and Valuation Summons are dismissed.
Cites 2 cases