CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.(IN LIQUIDATION) v CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD

HCA 3391/2016 & HCA 1417/2013

[2025] HKCFI 4419

HCA 3391/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 3391 OF 2016

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

AND

HCA 1417/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1417 OF 2013

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

(Consolidated by Order of Master Chow dated the 23^rd day of July 2018)

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  In this application, the 6^th Defendant applies to set aside the leave to re-amend the Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”) in relation to items 6.1B and 6.1C of Appendix 2 thereof, or alternatively to disallow, strike out and/or expunge the pleas in those two items of Appendix 2.

2.  The 6^th Defendant’s principal submission is that items 6.1B and 6.1C of Appendix 2 of the RASOC introduce 2 new causes of action against D6, namely dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.

3.  I do not agree with this submission.

4.  In my view, the pleas in relation to items 6.1B and 6.1C of Appendix 2 of the Re-Amended Statement of Claim (“RASOC”) merely identify two further payments traceable from the alleged misappropriated funds. In other words, they are particulars showing how D6 received the relevant sums. As far as the 6^th Defendant’s total receipt of money is concerned, the Plaintiff has not changed the plea that the total amount received by D6 was US$17.76 million. This can be seen from paragraphs 307.5, 311 and Appendix 2 of the RASOC. In particular, as shown in Appendix 2 of the RASOC, the net amount received by the 6^th Defendant remains unchanged at US$17.76 million even after the amendment was made to the ASOC.

5.  I do not think that the particulars in items 6.1B and 6.1C of Appendix 2 are material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed in its claim. They are not in my view part of the Plaintiff’s causes of action in dishonest assistance or knowing receipt.

6.  In any event, the Plaintiff has pleaded in Appendix 2 that items 6.1B and 6.1C have been excluded from the total sum of US$17.76 million to avoid double counting in the quantum of receipts by D6. This plea reinforces my view that the two items do not form part of the Plaintiff’s causes of action in dishonest assistance or knowing receipt.

7.  In the light of my view that items 6.1B and 6.1C do not introduce two new causes of actions against the 6^th Defendant, the 6^th Defendant’s other submissions fall away.

8.  I should also mention that I disagree with the suggestion that the Plaintiff’s application to amend the ASOC was made ex parte. Whilst it is regrettable that the 6^th Defendant failed to attend the PTR in June because of his illness, his absence from the hearing does not, in my view, make the amendment application ex parte.

9.  For these reasons, I dismiss the 6^th Defendant’s summons dated 11 September 2025.

10.  I will now hear the parties on costs.

(Submissions on costs)

11.  The costs of and occasioned by the 6^th Defendant’s summons are to be paid by the 6^th Defendant to the Plaintiff to be summarily assessed.

12.  Taking a broad brush approach, I make a reduction for items in Sections C and D of the Statement of Costs. Having made the reductions, the Plaintiff’s costs are summarily assessed at HK$90,000.

Ms Cherry Xu, instructed by Karas So LLP, for the 1^st to 3^rd Plaintiffs

P.C. Woo & Co., for the 2^nd Defendant, attendance excused

The 3^rd to 5^th Defendants were not represented and did not appear

Mr Kerby Lau and Mr Paul Law, instructed by Li & Partners, for the 6^th Defendant

Guantao & Chow Solicitors and Notaries, for the 13^th Defendant, attendance excused