YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS

YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS

The Anton Piller Order was not discharged because the defendants failed to prove that subsequent discovery in the main action had extinguished the plaintiffs' express entitlement to inspect the electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order; the defendants also failed to file opposing evidence as directed, so the application to discharge was without merit and dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Citation
YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner/1st Petitioner/plaintiff: Anthony James Hatton; Petitioner: Yearich Limited; 2nd Petitioner: Rustem Limited; Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp): Step By Step Limited; Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp): New Success Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff/3rd Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp): Step Up Limited; 1st Respondent/1st Defendant: Dorothy Jane Furness; 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant: Raphael Homer Echaluce; 3rd Respondent: Stephen Smout; 3rd Defendant: Entertain Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited; 4th/5th Respondent: Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited; 4th Respondent: Low Soke Leng Cindy; 4th Respondent: New Sun Development Limited; 1st Respondent: Mostop Limited; 3rd Respondent: Craigside Company Limited; 4th Respondent: Excel Sun Limited; 4th Respondent: Sparkling Wine International Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 September 2008
Case Number
HCMP847/2007
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Proceedings Consolidated With High Court Action (application to Discharge Anton Piller Order) / Chambers Hearing and Decision on Summons to Discharge Anton Piller Order (12 September 2008)
Outcome
Application to discharge Anton Piller Order dismissed
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Inspection of Electronic Records, Continuation and Variation of Court Orders, Effect of Subsequent Discovery on Interlocutory Search Rights, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Search and Seizure Orders Evidence and Discovery Anton Piller Order Inspection of Electronic Records Continuation and Variation of Court Orders Effect of Subsequent Discovery on Interlocutory Search Rights +1 more

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James Hatton

Petitioner/1st Petitioner/plaintiff

Yearich Limited

Petitioner

Rustem Limited

2nd Petitioner

Step By Step Limited

Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp)

New Success Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp)

Step Up Limited

Plaintiff/3rd Plaintiff/4th Respondent (in Hcmp)

Dorothy Jane Furness

1st Respondent/1st Defendant

Raphael Homer Echaluce

2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant

Stephen Smout

3rd Respondent

Entertain Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited

4th Defendant

Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited

4th/5th Respondent

Low Soke Leng Cindy

4th Respondent

New Sun Development Limited

4th Respondent

Mostop Limited

1st Respondent

Craigside Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Excel Sun Limited

4th Respondent

Sparkling Wine International Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Proceedings Consolidated With High Court Action (application to Discharge Anton Piller Order) / Chambers Hearing and Decision on Summons to Discharge Anton Piller Order (12 September 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Anton Piller Order should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether subsequent discovery in the main action subsumed the entitlement to inspect electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order
  3. 3 Whether change of circumstances and lack of funds justified failure to file opposing evidence and discharge application

Ratio Decidendi

The Anton Piller Order was not discharged because the defendants failed to prove that subsequent discovery in the main action had extinguished the plaintiffs' express entitlement to inspect the electronic records seized under the Anton Piller Order; the defendants also failed to file opposing evidence as directed, so the application to discharge was without merit and dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge Anton Piller Order dismissed

Orders

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