Betty June Yuen and Othersv. Ynonne Yee Mun Yuen and Others

HCCW000828/2000

HCCW 828/2000 and
HCCW 829/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO. 828 OF 2000

____________

____________

____________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO. 829 OF 2000

____________

____________

____________

(Heard Together)

Coram: Hon Yuen J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 27 September 2001

Date of Decision: 27 September 2001

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.In relation to the summonses taken out in these winding up petitions by the Respondents on 22 September 2001, I note the following.

2.The affidavits in reply were filed in May, so the issues would have been apparent to the parties more than four months ago. Both the Petitioners and Respondents filed their lists, in the first instance, on 14 June 2001.

3.Within 21/2 weeks, the Petitioners' solicitors had asked the Respondents for a further list and for specific documents. The Respondents' solicitors asked for time to respond to that letter up to 1 August 2001, and on 12 July, the discovery summonses were issued returnable on 9 October. To date, the Respondents' solicitors have had two months in which to consider the matter. The first matter to be considered must be the relevance or otherwise of the items sought in the schedule. In my view, two months odd have been more than adequate for them to have considered the relevance or otherwise of those documents.

4.In relation to the argument that some of the documents were such that it would be oppressive to provide them, it would appear from the letter from the Respondents' solicitors of 22 September that this relates only to two items.

5.In any event, as it turns out, should three hours be required, three hours are available on 9 October and consequently, I would not vacate 9 October and I will set aside three hours for that hearing on that day. Should the Respondents wish to do so, I will give them leave to file an affidavit in opposition to be served by 5 October, which would give them 5 working days to do so. I would have thought that by now, some 21/2 months after the first request for these documents in early July, the Respondents' legal advisers would have been able to marshall their response to file this affidavit in opposition. It would be up to the Petitioners to file an affidavit (if they wish to do so) in reply sufficiently in advance of the hearing on 9 October to make that day viable.

6.Accordingly, I will dismiss the summonses of 20 September 2001 save to the extent that the 1st to 6th Respondents in Winding-up 828 and the 1st to 5th Respondents in Winding-up 829 have leave to file affidavits in opposition by 5 October 2001 and the Petitioners have leave to file evidence in reply if so advised by noon 8 October. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Representation:

Mr J Harris, instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna, for the Petitioners in both cases

Mr William M F Wong, instructed by Liu, Choi & Chan, for 1st to 6th Respondents in CW 828/00 and 1st to 5th Respondents in CW 829/00