Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2359/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 6 September 2013 before Deputy District Judge Grace Chan.
Matrimonial proceedings – Discovery – Company books – Jurisdiction – Order 24 rule 13 – Inspection – Costs – Family Court lacks jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance s.121 – Discretion exercised under Order 24 rule 13 RHC for specific items – Inspection allowed for items 8, 9, 13 of Schedule 1 – Costs 50% – Wife sought inspection of 14 family companies' books due to discrepancies in audited accounts of FC Ltd – Husband controlled companies and conceded to provide copies of some accounts – Court held District Court is statutory court with limited jurisdiction under District Court Ordinance Cap 336 – Court held Order 24 rule 13 RHC requires necessity for fair disposal – Court balanced relevance and hardship – Inspection allowed for items 8, 9, 13 of Schedule 1 covering period from 1 April 2011 up to date – Inspection of unspecified underlying records of 11 companies dismissed – Husband ordered to allow wife to enter office within 35 days – Costs order nisi that husband bear 50% of wife's costs – Authorities cited include H v M [2000] 2 HKLRD 306, Re Boldwin Construction Co Ltd & Another [2001] 3 HKLRD 430, Ng Yee Wah v Lam Chun Wah [2012] 4 HKLRD 40, Re Alvarez & Marsal Asia Ltd [2009] 4 HKLRD 727, Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Ltd [2008] Bus LR 1244, John Arthur Wright v Hampton Winter & Glynn (a firm) & Another, DCMP 3233/2007, Wong Kam Chi v Lee Tik Ying [2002] 1 HKLRD 420, B v B (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery) [1979] 1 All ER 801, LKD v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537 – Court found Family Court cannot grant order under s.121 as Court of First Instance only – Court found Order 24 rule 13 applies to ancillary relief – Court found items 8, 9, 13 necessary for fair disposal due to transactions in China – Court found unspecified records too wide – Court fixed next first appointment for 7 November 2013
Legal issues: Jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance s.121 · Discretion under Order 24 rule 13 RHC
Outcome: Application allowed in part; Family Court lacks jurisdiction under s.121 Companies Ordinance; Inspection ordered under Order 24 rule 13 RHC for specific items; Costs 50%
Cites 2 cases