Richardson Greenshields of Canada (Pacific) Ltd. v. Tze Yim

HCA006690/1987

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

____________

BETWEEN

AND BETWEEN

(by Counterclaim)

___________

Coram: Kaplan, J.

Dates of Hearing: 24 & 25 April 1991

Date of handing down of Judgment: 10 May 1991

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. I have had before me no less than 15 summonses in respect of this action and counterclaim which is due to commence on 25th June 1991.  The bulk of these deal with interrogatories and particulars.  I have delivered a separate judgment on the Defendants application to vacate the June date.

2. This is another action brought about by the Stock Exchange crash of October 1987.  In essence, the defendant (the client) claims that when liquidating his account for alleged failure to comply with the terms of his margin account, the plaintiff (broker) did not sell a large number of his shares at a reasonable or market price.  In fact, on 27th October 1987, the broker sold a parcel of shares deposited by the client for the sum of nearly $95m by private sale to Mr. LI Ka-shing and/or to a company or companies with whom he was associated.  In essence, the client says that this private sale was not bona fide, and that it was entered into at advantageous terms to Mr. LI.  He pleads that the shares were sold some 26% below market price.  Over 4,000,000 Cheung Kong shares were included in this private sale as were just over 3,000,000 Hutchison shares.  It is said that before the crash the defendant owned shares worth approximately $250m.   After his account was liquidated, the plaintiff contended that he owed some $64m which with interest now stands at approximately $85m.  I should add that the client also denies that such shares listed in schedules B & C were ever purchased by the brokers on his behalf or on his instruction.  In respect of shares sold in the market on 26th October and listed in schedule D, the client alleges that the brokers acted in breach of the Customer Trading Agreement and/or acted in breach of duty.

Interrogatories

3. Before dealing shortly with each individual interrogatory, I should set out the principles which have guided me.  Firstly, the interrogatory has to be relevant. By this, I mean relevant to the pleaded issues.

4. Secondly, fishing interrogatories are not allowed.

5. Thirdly, the interrogatories must not be oppressive. An interrogatory which requires an enormous amount of work to answer it must be looked at with care specailly when I bear in mind the proximity of the hearing date.

6. Further, an interrogatory which is prolix or imprecisely formulated will be disallowed.   Still further, the proximity of the hearing is itself a factor to take into account because a late interrogatory may well interfere with the preparation for trial.

7. Order 26 rule 1 of the Hong Kong Rules of the Supreme Court makes clear that only interrogatories which are necessary either

should be ordered.

1.                     By summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 144) the client seeks leave to serve interrogatories on the broker's parent company.

These are consented to and I made an order by consent that these interrogatories be provided within 14 days of 25th April in an unsworn version with the sworn version being provided 14 days thereafter.

2.                       By summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 145) the client seeks (1) further and better particulars of the broker's reply to the fresh defence and defence to counterclaim; and (2) further and better particulars of the amended reply defence to counterclaim dated 18th May 1988.

As to (1), there are 68 requests.  Mr. Chain for the client abandoned the following;

13(f), 20, 28, 29, 55, 56 & 63.

Apart from request 67, Mr. Smith for the broker consents to all the others.  I therefore made an order by consent for the provision of all these particulars within 14 days of the 25th April 1991.  I refuse request 67.  It is not a proper request to ask whether other matters, save those pleaded, are relied upon.

As to (2), requests 1, 8, 9 & 21 are abandoned.  Save for requests 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20, 22-24 & 27, the rest are agreed.  (Each request has been consecutively numbered for ease of reference.)

Request 5 is refused. The broker pleads that the prices obtained were the best that could have been obtained in the circumstances.  They were asked to specify the circumstances.  They listed seven matters including

"The consideration as at 27th October 1987 that the possibility of a substantial recovery by the Hang Seng Index was most unlikely in the ensuring months."

To ask them how to specify what they mean precisely by 'substantial recovery' is asking them to speculate with precision when they have relied upon a general consideration which they took into account.

Request 6 is refused. This is similar to request  5, in that it asks the number of months referred to in 5.

Requests 11 & 12 are allowed. These are relevant to the matters complained of by the client.

Requests 18-20. These deal with delivery of the shares the subject matter of the private sale.  Mr. Smith contends that as the private sale is admitted, there is no need to go into questions of delivery.  However bearing in mind the allegations that have been made by the client, I think that these requests are reasonable and I so order.

Request 22-24. I propose to allow these by parity of reasoning with 18-20 above.

Request 27 is refused. This is asking the broker to speculate with precision, and I consider the matter is clear as particularized.

I therefore make a consent order in respect of those requests admitted.  They will be supplied within 14 days from 25th April 1991.

I made an order in respect of requests 11 and 18-24.  These will also be supplied within 14 days of handing down of this written judgment.

3.                       By summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 149) the client seeks (1) an order requiring the broker to state whether it has or has had in its custody power or possession the documents set out in schedule 1 thereto; and (2) an order that the client to be at liberty to serve on the broker 104 interrogatories.

(1)    discovery

The parties have agreed that the broker will serve on the client the affidavit sought but they have agreed to amend the terms of schedule 1 so that it now reads as follow;

"All correspondence, memoranda, papers, writings and other documents or communications or records of communications, agreements, statements of whatever nature or description concerning or relating to the opening of or operation of or transactions in connection with the accounts (if any) maintained with the plaintiff by

	(a)	Mr. LI Ka-skiing
	(b)	Penkilan Limited
	(c)	any other company associated with (a) or (b) above
	concerning or involving shares or securities as those listed in schedule E of the fresh defence and counterclaim or any transactions connected thereto."

I make an order in the terms of that part of summons as amended above.  The affidavit will be supplied within 14 days from 25th April 1991.

(2)     Interrogatories

The broker agrees to answer the following interrogatories contained in schedule 2 to the summons.  1-6, 8-12, 13 (except the last nine words thereof), 15-18, 22-33, 35-40, 45-51, 54, 56-58, 61-62, 64, 75-78, 83, 85, 87, 89(d) & 92.  (35 was agreed in the form of the hand-written version placed before me.)

The client abandoned the following;

the last six words of 13, 34, 52, 59, 63(a)-(c), (e), (f), (n)-(r), 62, 69, 70(a), 71, 73-74, 79, 84, 86, 89 (save (d)), 90, 91(a)-(h), 93-97, 99-101.

The interrogatories in issue are thus the following.

No. 7

This is a very long interrogatory which seeks information as to whether the broker's various executives involved in this matter had their own dealing accounts with the broker and, if so, whether they had in their portfolio any shares in the same companies as the client's portfolio, and how these accounts stood at various stages.

This is a classic fishing interrogatory.  It is not, in my judgment, relevant to any pleaded issue in the case.  It is an attempt to find material upon which to base the argument that these executives, or some of them, had their own personal interests to serve in selling the client's portfolio privately rather than on the open market.  It is also late in the day and is bordering on the oppressive because if they did have such accounts, it might well be difficult to extract all the necessary information in the limited time available.  This interrogatory is refused.

No. 14

This interrogatory seeks information relating to whether the brokers between 19th October 1987 and 6th November 1987 executed any purchases in the market of securities of a type included in the client's portfolio. The relevance of this is not made out. It seems likely that most purchases were made on behalf of clients and on their instructions, and thus I do not see the relevance of this question.  This interrogatory is refused.

No. 19-21

These interrogatories attempt to trace the schedule E securities, i.e. those sold by private sale to Mr. LI and/or Penkilan.  They seek to discover whether and, if so, when, these securities were transferred into the name of Mr. LI or Penkilan or anyone acting on their behalf.  Insofar as the broker is concerned, the sale to Mr. LI/Penkilan is admitted.  Mr. Smith submits that these interrogatories are oppressive and irrelevant.  What does it matter, he submits, whether these shares were sold quickly or were kept.  Mr. Smith also relies on the affidavit of Mr. Passmore, the partner in Simmons & Simmons, solicitors for the brokers, who deposes to the fact that there is a lot of work involved in answering these three interrogatories. Mr. Smith submits that, in any event, these interrogatories are better directed to Mr. LI.

I agree with these objections and refuse these three interrogatories.

No. 41

This interrogatory requests the broker to state other private purchasers who could or might have been approached by the brokers as "potential buyers" on 27th October 1987.

Mr. Smith objects to this as being unclear and irrelevant.  I disagree. The existence, or otherwise, of potential purchasers of the whole or part of this large portfolio is relevant to the reasonableness of the terms agreed by Mr. LI.  If he were the only person who would be prepared to buy this portfolio, then he would be in a strong bargaining position. If there were competitors, the matter might be different.

I allow this interrogatory.

No. 53

This interrogatory asks whether at the material time the broker had any other "business or other connections or relationships with Mr. LI or any company associated with Mr. LI". This is hopelessly wide and vague and is therefore refused.

Interrogatory 54 is more precise and has been consented to, and interrogatory 55 also covers the same or similar ground.

No. 55

The opposition here was rather half-hearted.  I allow this interrogatory subject to limiting (b) to the period since 1st January 1985 (the period fairly suggested by Mr. Smith).

No. 60

I cannot see the relevance of this interrogatory. If it be relevant, then the broker's witnesses can be asked about it at trial.

No. 63(d)

The broker's solicitors have already admitted that their clients' endorsement chop should have appeared on the reverse side of this instrument of transfer. They also stated in correspondence that their clients cannot now provide a reason for this omission. I do not see how this matter can be taken further at this stage.

No. 63(g)-(m)

All these sub-requests relate to the detail of the sale of shares which sale of shares is admitted by the broker. Mr. Smith submits that these are all irrelevant, oppressive and unnecessary. I agree and all seven sub-requests are refused.

No. 65

I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory and it is refused.

No. 66

I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory.  It is refused.

No. 68

I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory.  It is refused.

No. 70(b)

I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory.  It is refused.

No. 72

I fail to see the relvance of this interrogatory, especially as it relates to a 1984 document. Further, the point was raised on the 11th November 1989 by the client's former solicitors in their very detailed (but still 20th) letter of that date to the broker's solicitors and was taken no further until this summons was issued.

No. 80

This deals with cross trades. I am just persuaded that this is relevant given that 80(e) specifically deals with the sale of shares in the client's portfolio on 27th. October 1987.

No. 81

This deals only with the Cheung Kong shares. As the brokers have admitted a sale to Mr. LI/Penkilan, the relevance is questionable. It also seeks information more likely to be known by Mr. LI rather than the brokers. The language of the request is somewhat unclear and on balance, I do not think that this is an interrogatory which the brokers should be required to answer at this stage.

No. 82

This relates to the Hutchison shares and is otherwise identical to 81, and is also refused.

No. 88

This deals with the delivery of the shares sold to Mr. LI/Penkilan. I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory. In any event, it is late in the day and may be difficult to comply with. It is refused.

No. 91(i)-(j)

These relate to the shares sold to Mr. LI save for the Hutchison shares. I fail to see the relevance of these interrogatories and I consider them  to be oppressive. They are refused.

No. 98

This deals with previous pledges of the shares sold to Mr. LI. The brokers admit a previous pledge and seek in their pleading to justify. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that this interrogatory is relevant and it is refused.

No. 102

This appears to be dealing with the onward sale of the Hang Seng Bank shares by Penkilan. I fail to see the relevance of this. In any event, the matters referred to in interrrogatory 102(2) were mentioned in paragraph 6 of a letter from the client's then solicitors dated 4th February 1989. This request is refused.

No. 103

I fail to see the relevance in identifying a signature on release forms when these securities were released by the broker to Mr. LI/Penkilan. It deals with the detailed mechanism of transfer and is some way from the real issues in this case. This request is refused.

No. 104

This request is refused on the same basis as 103.

Insofar as the broker consented to give some of the interrogatories they will be provided within 14 days from 25th April 1991. Insofar as I have ordered them to be given they should be supplied within 14 days of the handing down of this written judgment. The costs of this summons will be in cause.

4.                     By summons dated 19th April 1991 (folio 162) the client applied for a Letter of Request to issue to the proper judicial authority of Canada for the examination of Alan AU, and that there be a stay of the action in the meantime.

Mr. Thomas conceded that there was an issue over Mr. AU's evidence and that the broker would not stand in the client's way if he wished to cross-examine the broker's witness. Mr. Thomas had received instructions that Mr. AU was very willing and able to give evidence in Canada at short notice and on that basis I made no order on the summons. I give leave to restore this summons if any problems do arise in this connection.

5.                     By summons dated 16th April 1991 (folio 166) the client sought an order under Order 27 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that the broker do provide at trial the documents referred to in the client's notice to produce dated 31st January 1991.

I made no order on this summons.

6.                     By summons dated 16th April 1991 (folio 170) the client seeks an order that the broker's parent company do serve further and better particulars of their defence to counterclaim.

Requests 3-15 and 18-23 are agreed.

Requests 16-17 and 24 are abandoned.

Requests 1 & 2

These seem to me relevant requests and are allowed.

7.                     By summons dated 16th April 1991 (folio 172) the client seeks an order that he be at liberty to serve on the broker 21 interrogatories running to some 60 pages.

Interrogatories 19-20 are agreed.

Interrogatories 4, 18 and 21 are abandoned.

Nos. 1-9

These interrogatories ask the broker whether they transacted numerous deals on the market between 26th October 1987 and 6th November 1987. These nine interrogatories run to some 47 pages. In order to be able to ask these questions, it is clear that those advising the client have the necessary information. These requests are oppressive in the extreme cooing as they do some nine weeks before trial. It may well be that the source documents upon which these interrogatories are based could be agreed. Be that as it may, all nine interrogatories are refused.

No. 10

As to this interrogatory, Mr. Smith emphasises yet again that the sale to Mr. LI/Penkilan is admitted and thus he questions the relevance of this interrogatory. This is similar to interrogatories 81 and 82 in folio 149 which I refused and I therefore refused this one as well.

No. 11

This refers to a number of documents between the 17th December 1986 and 14th October 1987. I fail to see the relevance of this interogatory. I also consider it to be oppressive and I refuse it.

No. 12

This relates to a document dated 26th May 1987, itself referring to 1,680,000 shares in Cheung Kong. I fail to see how this interrogatory goes to any pleaded issue, but iin any event it pre-dates the sale, the subject matter of complaint. This request is refused.

No. 13

This also relates to a document in May 1987 and is also refused.

No. 15

(a)-(e) and (g) all ask for the production of documents under Order 24 rule 10. The notes to Order 26 rule l at page 479 of the White Book make it clear that interrogatories should not be used for obtaining documents by way of discovery.

This whole interrogatory appears to be dealing with delivery of the shares in question to Mr. LI/Penkilan. It requests considerable detail. I am not satisfied as to relevance and the detail it involves borders on the oppressive. This request is refused.

No. 16

This is again a blatant attempt at obtaining discovery and is refused.

No. 17

Although I accept that this request involves a lot of work I am just persuaded that it is relevant and I therfore so order.

8.                     By summons dated the 28th March 1991 (folio 158) the broker sought further and better particulars of five occasions in the fresh defence where it was alleged that the client had suffered loss and damage.

Mr. Chain submitted that he was not obliged to provide these particulars and Mr. Smith said they were essential to appreciate the case against the broker. I decided that these particulars had to be given and I gave very brief oral reasons. I therefore made an order that these particulars be given 14 days after compliance of all the orders for particulars or interrogatories made against the broker whether voluntarily or ordered by the court. The costs of this summons will be in cause.

9.                     By Summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 146) the client sought further and better particulars of the defence to counterclaim of the broker and its parent.

Requests 1, 3, 5-7, 16, 17, 26 and 29 were abandoned.

Requests 2

The parragraph to which this request relates is perfectly clear and thus the request is not necessary and is refused.

Request 4

The paragraph to which this request relates is based on the construction of paragraph 3(4) of the Customer Trading Agreement. How this agreement will be construed is a matter of law and this request is refused.

Request 8

This was agreed by Mr. Ma during argument.  It is therefore allowed.

Request 9

The paragraph to which this particular relates only incorporates what the brokers had themselves pleaded. I refused the similar request in relation to the broker's pleading and I refused this one.

Request 10

This is a request for particulars of an admission and is refused.

Request 11

I fail to see the relevance of this request and it is refused.

Request 12

I have certain reservations about relevance under this paragraph, but the point may just as well be cleared up. In those circumstances, I allow this request.

Request 13

This was agreed by Mr. Ma during argument, and I so order.

Request 14

This seems a proper and relevant request and I so order.

Request 15

This request is refused. It is quite obvious what it is meant and in any event, the movements in the Hang Sent Index and the number and value of shares traded are matters of record which I assume will be agreed by the parties for the purposes of trial.

Request 18(a)

18(b) and (c) were abandoned.

As to (a), this ties up with request 14 which I allowed. I therefore propose to allow 18(a).

Request 19

I am not happy at the way this is drafted. I think that the proper request here is for the brokers and the parent to specify the nature of their case under this paragraph.  I therefore make an order in those terms.

Request 20

This is refused because it ought to be covered by the statement as to the nature of the case under request 19.

Request 21

This is perfectly clear and is refused.

Request 22

This seeks to ask whether Mr. LI's shareholding in Cheung Kong was held legally or beneficially. I fail to see the relevance of this request. It may well be as was hinted at during the course of argument that this is an attempt to investigate whether or not there was any danger of Mr. LI owning sufficient of these shares to bring him over the 35% mark. However, this is not pleaded and it seems to me that the size of Mr. LI's shareholding is only relevant to show that he was a prime candidate for the purchase of a large quantity of shares at this difficult time in the market. This is refused.

Request 23

This is refused on the same grounds as 22.

Request 24

This was consented to by Mr. Ma during the course of argument and I so order.

Request 25

I propse to allow this and so order.

Request 26

The phrase to which this request relates is well-known, and I therefore refuse this request.

Request 27

This is refused and I fail to see its relevance to the pleaded case.

Requests 28, 29 & 30

These are all refused. They all relate to the first three words under paragraph 15, namely "in the premises" and I do not think that this is a proper request.

10.                    By summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 147) the client seeks leave to serve 54 interrogatories on Mr. LI.

15-21, 27 and 49-52 were abaondoned.

1 and 2

These deal with discussions, whereas 3 and 4 deal with negotiations. I propose to refuse 1 and 2.

3 and 4

As they deal with negotiations leading to the private sale, I would allow them.

5

I would allow this interrogatory.

6

I am just persuaded that this is relevant and I so order.

7

This is now agreed and I so order.

8

I fail to see the relevance of this interrogatory. Mr. Ma submits that if it is designed to elicit an admission that Mr. LI was acting as agent for an undisclosed principal then it is not permissible. (See Sebright v. Hanbury (1916) 2 Ch. 245 and page 476 White Book.) This is refused.

9

Mr. LI's objects in purchasing these securities must be irrelevant and this is refused.

10-14

These all relate to the subsequent disposal of shares comprised in the private transaction. I fail to see the relevant of this. In any event, the price of the shares on the market at the date of disposal is a matter of public record and I am sure this can be agreed. The claim here is in conversion and the prima facie measure of damage is the value of the shares at the date of conversion and not four weeks later. As Mr. MA points out if the client should succeed or his claim based on a constructive trust then an account of profits may be ordered in which case the amount received by the guilty party may become relevant. Matters of this nature cannot be relevant to questions of liability alone. These are all refused.

22

This was agreed during argument and is now ordered.

23

I propose to allow 23(a) - (c). However, I find (d) too remote and it may well be hard to answer accurately. (d) is thus refused.

24

(a) and (b) are matters of public record and are referred to in the pleading. They are not needed and are refused.

I will order (c).

25

I will order (a) and (b), but refuse (c) for the same reasons as under 23 above.

26

This was agreed during argument and is ordered.

28 and 29

These were agreed during argument and are ordered.

30

This has given me some concern because it is certainly a very wide enquiry indeed. However despite its width, I am just persuaded that it is relevant and proper to order. It seeks to ask Mr. LI whether he or any company associated with him or controlled by him purchased any shares whether in or off the market in the six companies forming the basis of schedule E. Clearly if there were a wide disparity between the price he paid to the broker and the price he paid elsewhere as about the same time, it would be a matter of some relevance. I therefore propose to order this interrogatory.

31

This seems unnecessary given the terms of interrogatory 32. It is therefore refused.

32

This interrogatory seeks to ascertain more details about the share purchases requested under 30. As I have allowed 30, it seems that 32 logically follows, and I therefore grant it.

33-38

These ask Mr. LI whether between the 6th and 17th November 1987, he or anyone acting for him purchased or acquired various lots of Cheung Kong shares at prices specified in the request. If the answer is in the affirmative, (b) goes on to ask whether they were purchased through the brokers, and (c) and (d) attempt to identify whether after such purchases Mr. LI's holding was a specified percentage of the issued share capital of the company.

The fact that these interrogatories can be posed as they are signifies that the client is in possession of information which proves purchases at certain prices on certain days. To that extent, these interrogatories are unnecessary. Mr. LI's precise holding in Cheung Kong does not appear to be relevant to the pleaded issue. Even if these purchases in Cheung Kong would take him over the 35% mark this has no bearing on whether the transaction on 27th October was or was not bona fide.

All these requests are refused.

39

This deals with subsequent disposals of the shares during the next 12 months. I fail to see its relevance and it is oppressive. It is refused.

40

(a)    is now agreed and I so order.

(b)    - this iis oppressive and relevance has not been made out. It is refused.

41

(a)    is now agreed and I so order.

(b)    - this is refused on the same basis as 40(b).

42

(a)     is now agreed and I so order.

(b)     - this is refused on the same basis as 40(b).

43

The relevance of this request has just been made out and I so order.

44

This was consented to in the form re-drafted, handed in and initialled by me. I so order.

45

Relevance has not been made out. This is also an inelegantly drafted interrogatory and is unnecessarily wide as it includes the very transaction which is admitted. This is refused.

46

This is just relevant as it relates to other possible off market transactions between the 19th October and 2nd November 1987. I so order.

47

This is a reasonable and relevant interrogatory and I so order.

48

In a sense, this follows from 47 and I allow it.

53

This relates to a document dated 17th March 1988. I fail to see what this interrogatory has to do with the bona fides of the transaction on 27th October 1987 and it is refused.

54

This relates to a document dated 2nd December 1987, but is, otherwise, similar to 53, and is also refused.

11.                   By summons dated 27th February 1991 (folio 148) the client seeks leave to serve interrogatories on Penkilan.

8, 19(a), 21-29, 32 and 39 were abandoned.

1

This is allowed.

2

This is allowed.

3

This is just clear enough and is allowed.

4

Although a document is sought under (a), this is a relevant interrogatory and I so order.

5

The objects of the purchase must be irrelevant and I refuse this interrogatory.

6

This was agreed and I so order.

7

How Penkilan paid for the shares is irrelevant. They were paid for.  The price is in issue. This is refused.

9

This is irrelevant and is refused.

10

This is agreed and I so order.

11

(a)     is agreed and I so order.

(b)    and (c) are of marginal relevance and are refused.

12

This is irrelevant and is refused.

13

This is irrelevant and is refused.

14-18

All these may be relevant to damages if the client wins on his constructive trust argument, and Mr. LI/Penkilan are made to disgorge any profits. These are therefore premature because an account of profits may be ordered in that eventuality whereupon such matters may become relevant. They are refused to this stage.

19

(a)    is unnecessary.

(b)     is consented to and I so order.

20

This is agreed and I so order.

30

This may be relevant to the client's enquiries and I so order.

31

I fail to see the relevance of this request and it is refused.

33

I ordered this in relation to Mr. LI and I so order this interrogatory.

34

This was consented to in the form re-drafted, handed in and initialled by me. It is the same as interrogatory 44 in the case of Mr. LI.

35

This is relevant and I so order.

36

This is relevant and I so order.

37

This is irrelevant and is refused.

38

This is irrelevant and is refused.

40

This is irrelevant and is refused.

41

This is irrelevant and oppressive and is refused.

42 and 43

These are identical to interrogatories 53 and 54 in the case of Mr. LI and are also refused.

12.                      By summons dated 16th April 1991 (folio 168) the client seeks leave to serve one interrogatory on Penkilan.

This relates solely to the Hong Kong Land shares. It is related to a document dated 8th December 1987.  I fail to see its relevance and it is refused.

13.                     By summons dated 16th April 1991 (folio 171) the client seeks leave to serve on interrogatory on Mr. LI.

This is the same as folio 168 and is also refused.

General

8. On the summons for directions (folio 155) I order that the counterclaim be heard together with the main hearing and on the same dates.

9. All interrogatories consented to or ordered will be answered by the person or persons named therein and in the form therein as no objections have been taken as to these matters.

10. All agreed interrogatories and particulars will be served within 14 days of 25th April 1991. All interrogatories and particulars ordered in this judgment will be served within 14 days of handing down this judgment.

11. In the case of the parent company, it can serve unsworn interrogatories within 14 days with the sworn version coming within 14 days thereafter.

12. The 3rd and 4th defendants to the counterclaim will both serve their lists of documents within 21 days from 25th April 1991.

13. The 3rd and 4th defendants to the counterclaim are given leave to adduce expert evidence. They must serve their expert's reports (if any) on the court and the other parties not less than 14 clays before the trial commences.

14. Any supplementary reports as a result of the 3rd and 4th defendants in the counterclaim's reports shall be served on the court and the other parties not less than 7 days before the trial commences.

15. The 3rd and 4th defendants in the counterclaim are to comply with paragraph 4 of the order for directions dated 20th September 1990 not less than 14 days before trial. (This deals with the exchange of witness statement.)

Costs

16. There will be an order for costs in cause in relation to all summonses for particulars and interrogatories.

17. As I have had to deal with so many summonses and so much material, there is a possibility that I have omitted something or made an order which was not sought. I give leave to all parties to come back before me within 7 days of handing down this judgment and point out any errors or omissions.

18. Finally, I would like to thank all counsel for their assistance in introducing me to and directing me through this mass of written material.

Representation:

Mr. B. Chain instructed by K.C. Ho & Fong for the Defendant and Plaintiff by counterclaim.

Mr. Michael Thomas, Q.C. and Mr. C. Smith instructed by Simmons & Simmons for the Plaintiff and 1st and 2nd Defendants by counterclaim.

Mr. G. Ma instructed by Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo for the 3rd & 4th Defendants by counterclaim.