ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Court found material non-disclosure in the ex parte application insofar as the Anton Piller order swept unduly wide by including many 'Group Companies' and by requiring disclosure of cash takings of Group Companies the defendant had no responsibility for; other non-disclosure allegations (Wanchai office) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: STEP BY STEP LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: STEP UP LIMITED; 1st Defendant: DOROTHY JANE FURNESS; 2nd Defendant: RAPHAEL HOMER ECHALUCE; 3rd Defendant: ENTERTAIN COMPANY LIMITED; 4th Defendant: MAD DOGS WANCHAI PUBLIC HOUSE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Case Number
HCMP842/2007
Procedural Posture
Company Law Litigation With Interlocutory Applications (anton Piller / Search and Seizure; Inspection Summons) / Interlocutory Hearing — Decision on Continuation of Anton Piller Order and Inspection of Seized Electronic Records
Outcome
Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection summons dismissed; liberty to apply; order nisi as to costs in favor of defendants.
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Full and Frank Disclosure, Inspection of Seized Electronic Records, Discharge of Ex Parte Orders, Discovery Obligations, Privilege, Solicitor's Duties
Source Language
en
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Search and Seizure Evidence Professional Conduct Anton Piller Order Full and Frank Disclosure +5 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEP BY STEP LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

STEP UP LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

DOROTHY JANE FURNESS

1st Defendant

RAPHAEL HOMER ECHALUCE

2nd Defendant

ENTERTAIN COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant

MAD DOGS WANCHAI PUBLIC HOUSE LIMITED

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Law Litigation With Interlocutory Applications (anton Piller / Search and Seizure; Inspection Summons) / Interlocutory Hearing — Decision on Continuation of Anton Piller Order and Inspection of Seized Electronic Records

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure in the ex parte application vitiated the Anton Piller order
  2. 2 Whether the Anton Piller order should be continued despite material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs were entitled to inspect copied electronic records seized under the Anton Piller order

Ratio Decidendi

Court found material non-disclosure in the ex parte application insofar as the Anton Piller order swept unduly wide by including many 'Group Companies' and by requiring disclosure of cash takings of Group Companies the defendant had no responsibility for; other non-disclosure allegations (Wanchai office) and execution complaints were not made out. Given the significance of the nondisclosures and disproportional breadth, the court exercised its discretion to discharge the Anton Piller order and dismiss the inspection summons and ordered parties to proceed with ordinary discovery, leaving defendants' solicitors to review preserved electronic records.

Court Disposition

Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection summons dismissed; liberty to apply; order nisi as to costs in favor of defendants.

Orders

  • Anton Piller order discharged
  • Inspection summons dismissed