Anthony James Hatton v. Dorothy Jane Furness and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 838/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 September 2008.
1. I have before me a summons issued on short notice by the defendants in High Court Action No. 2712 of 2006 on 11 September 2008 to discharge an Anton Piller Order granted by Lam J on 5 December 2006.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCMP 838/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 838 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 839/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 839 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 840/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 840 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 842/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 842 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 843/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 843 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 844/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 844 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 845/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 845 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 847/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 847 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 850/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 850 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCMP 1208/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1208 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- HCA 2712/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2712 OF 2006 ----------------------
---------------------- (Consolidated by the Orders of The Honourable Madam Justice Kwan Before: Hon Kwan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 12 September 2008 Date of Decision : 12 September 2008 ---------------------- D E C I S I O N ---------------------- 1.I have before me a summons issued on short notice by the defendants in High Court Action No. 2712 of 2006 on 11 September 2008 to discharge an Anton Piller Order granted by Lam J on 5 December 2006. 2.It is not necessary for me to go into the history of this matter. Suffice it to say that on 6 December 2006, the plaintiffs took out an inter partes summons for the continuation of the Anton Piller Order and on 13 December 2006, the defendants took out a summons to vary that Order. 3.By consent on 13 December 2006, Yam J adjourned the defendants’ summons to vary the Anton Piller Order until the disposal of the plaintiffs’ summons for continuation. The summons for continuation was heard by Lam J on 15 December 2006. Again, by an order made by consent, the defendants were directed to file evidence in opposition by 5 January 2007, and that the Anton Piller Order is to be continued until after the determination of the continuation summons or further order of the court. The defendants have not filed any evidence in opposition to the continuation summons. I am told by Miss Boreham for the defendants that this was because the defendants did not have sufficient funds at that time for any further steps to be taken to vary the Anton Piller Order or to oppose the continuation summons. 4.The Anton Piller Order did not make provision on the procedures for the inspection of the electronic records obtained. In June 2008, the plaintiffs’ solicitors requested inspection of the electronic records, and between June to August 2008 correspondence was exchanged between the plaintiffs’ solicitors, the defendants’ solicitors and the supervising solicitor of the Anton Piller Order on an appropriate form of procedure for inspection of the electronic records to be carried out. As no agreement has been reached, the plaintiffs have taken out a summons seeking directions from this court, and that is a separate matter to be determined on another occasion. 5.In the meantime, the defendants have taken out the present summons seeking to discharge entirely the Anton Piller Order. If the application is acceded to, there would no need to deal with the plaintiffs’ summons for directions on the procedure to be adopted for inspection of the electronic records. 6.I gather from Miss Boreham that the reason for the application for discharge is that there is a change of circumstances. I was given to understand that discovery of documents has taken place in the High Court Action, and the defendants have disclosed hard copies of the documents relevant to the issues in the High Court Action. Hence, she submitted that any discovery or inspection of the electronic records obtained in the Anton Piller Order would be subsumed by the discovery that has taken place in the High Court Action. 7.In the correspondence exchanged between the parties in June to August this year on the inspection of the electronic records, I note it was not mentioned by the defendants’ solicitors that inspection of the electronic records has been subsumed in the discovery given in the High Court Action. 8.In any event, I cannot be sure that that must be the case. Under the Anton Piller Order, the plaintiffs are entitled to inspection of the electronic records. It does not seem to me that anything has taken place to take away that entitlement. 9.The application to discharge the Anton Piller Order is without merits. I dismiss this application. I order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of this application forthwith.
Miss Frances Lok, instructed by Messrs Allen & Overy, for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in consolidated case Miss Boreham of Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in HCMP838-840, 842-845/2007 and 1208/2007 and 2nd Respondent in HCMP847 and 850/2007 and the Defendants in HCA 2712/2006 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 838/2007