ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

The defendants failed to file evidence showing that discovery in the main action has actually subsumed the entitlement to inspect electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order; nothing before the court demonstrated a material change of circumstances warranting discharge; consequently the Anton Piller Order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner / Plaintiff (consolidated): Anthony James Hatton; 2nd Petitioner in Hcmp1208/2007: Rustem Limited; Petitioner (in Hcmp847/850/other): Yearich Limited; 1st Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Related Hcmps: Step By Step Limited; 2nd Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Hcmps: New Success Enterprises Limited; 3rd Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Hcmps: Step Up Limited; Respondent in Hcmp840/2007: Step Further Limited; Respondent in Hcmp842/2007: Glory Sun Investments Limited; Respondent in Hcmp843/2007: Step Onward Limited; Respondent in Hcmp845/2007: Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited; Respondent in Hcmp847/2007: New Sun Development Limited; Respondent in Hcmp850/2007: Excel Sun Limited; 4th Respondent in Hcmp1208/2007: Sparkling Wine International Limited; 1st Respondent / 1st Defendant (consolidated): Dorothy Jane Furness; 2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant (consolidated): Raphael Homer Echaluce; 3rd Respondent / 3rd Defendant: Stephen Smout; 4th Respondent in Hcmp845/2007: Low Soke Leng Cindy; 3rd Defendant in HCA 2712/2006: Entertain Company Limited; 4th Defendant in HCA 2712/2006: Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited; 1st Respondent in Hcmp847/850/related: Mostop Limited; 3rd Respondent in Hcmp847/850/related: Craigside Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 September 2008
Case Number
HCMP1208/2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications Under Companies Ordinance and Ancillary Anton Piller Order in Consolidated High Court Proceedings / Application to Discharge Anton Piller Order; Interlocutory Decision (heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Application to discharge the Anton Piller Order dismissed
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Inspection of Electronic Records, Continuation and Variation of Interlocutory Orders, Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Search and Seizure (anton Piller Orders) Evidence Anton Piller Order Inspection of Electronic Records Continuation and Variation of Interlocutory Orders Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James Hatton

Petitioner / Plaintiff (consolidated)

Rustem Limited

2nd Petitioner in Hcmp1208/2007

Yearich Limited

Petitioner (in Hcmp847/850/other)

Step By Step Limited

1st Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Related Hcmps

New Success Enterprises Limited

2nd Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Hcmps

Step Up Limited

3rd Plaintiff in HCA 2712 / Respondent in Hcmps

Step Further Limited

Respondent in Hcmp840/2007

Glory Sun Investments Limited

Respondent in Hcmp842/2007

Step Onward Limited

Respondent in Hcmp843/2007

Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited

Respondent in Hcmp845/2007

New Sun Development Limited

Respondent in Hcmp847/2007

Excel Sun Limited

Respondent in Hcmp850/2007

Sparkling Wine International Limited

4th Respondent in Hcmp1208/2007

Dorothy Jane Furness

1st Respondent / 1st Defendant (consolidated)

Raphael Homer Echaluce

2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant (consolidated)

Stephen Smout

3rd Respondent / 3rd Defendant

Low Soke Leng Cindy

4th Respondent in Hcmp845/2007

Entertain Company Limited

3rd Defendant in HCA 2712/2006

Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited

4th Defendant in HCA 2712/2006

Mostop Limited

1st Respondent in Hcmp847/850/related

Craigside Company Limited

3rd Respondent in Hcmp847/850/related

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications Under Companies Ordinance and Ancillary Anton Piller Order in Consolidated High Court Proceedings / Application to Discharge Anton Piller Order; Interlocutory Decision (heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Anton Piller Order should be discharged for change of circumstances and because subsequent discovery subsumes the need to inspect electronic records
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs retain an entitlement to inspect electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' failure to file evidence and their claimed lack of funds excuses non-opposition to earlier continuation steps

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to file evidence showing that discovery in the main action has actually subsumed the entitlement to inspect electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order; nothing before the court demonstrated a material change of circumstances warranting discharge; consequently the Anton Piller Order remains in force and the discharge application was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the Anton Piller Order dismissed

Orders

  • Application to discharge Anton Piller Order dismissed
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of the application forthwith