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

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

Material non-disclosure was established concerning the excessively wide scope of the Anton Piller order (inclusion of numerous unrelated 'Group Companies' and requirements as to cash takings beyond the 1st defendant's responsibility); given the significance of that non-disclosure the court declined to exercise its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: STEP BY STEP LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: STEP UP LIMITED; Petitioner: ANTHONY JAMES HATTON; 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
HCMP1208/2007
Procedural Posture
High Court Action HCA 2712/2006 Companies Ordinance Proceedings Involving Anton Piller Order and Related Hcmps / Hearing on Continuation Summons and Inspection Summons; Judgment Handed Down 20 February 2009
Outcome
Anton Piller Order discharged; Inspection Summons dismissed; liberty to apply preserved
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Disclosure and Full and Frank Disclosure, Inspection of Electronic Records, Execution of Search Orders, Fiduciary Duties and Breach, Discharge of Ex Parte Orders, Solicitor's Duty in Discovery
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Evidence Law Anton Piller Order Disclosure and Full and Frank Disclosure Inspection of Electronic Records Execution of Search Orders +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEP BY STEP LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

STEP UP LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON

Petitioner

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

High Court Action HCA 2712/2006 Companies Ordinance Proceedings Involving Anton Piller Order and Related Hcmps / Hearing on Continuation Summons and Inspection Summons; Judgment Handed Down 20 February 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure vitiated the ex parte Anton Piller order
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the Anton Piller order was disproportionate and overbroad
  3. 3 Whether the Anton Piller order was executed improperly or oppressively

Ratio Decidendi

Material non-disclosure was established concerning the excessively wide scope of the Anton Piller order (inclusion of numerous unrelated 'Group Companies' and requirements as to cash takings beyond the 1st defendant's responsibility); given the significance of that non-disclosure the court declined to exercise its discretion to continue the Anton Piller order and discharged it, dismissing the Inspection Summons and directing ordinary discovery procedures instead.

Court Disposition

Anton Piller Order discharged; Inspection Summons dismissed; liberty to apply preserved

Orders

  • Anton Piller Order discharged
  • Inspection Summons dismissed