ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

The court found material non-disclosure in the ex parte application insofar as the Anton Piller order was drafted excessively wide (inclusion of numerous unrelated Group Companies and an overbroad paragraph concerning cash takings for companies the first defendant did not control). The omissions were material to the...

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
HCMP844/2007
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action Concerning Companies and Proprietary Claims; Application to Continue Anton Piller Order / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation Summons and Inspection Summons (application to Continue Ex Parte Anton Piller Order; Whether Seized Electronic Records May Be Inspected)
Outcome
Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection Summons dismissed; discovery to proceed by ordinary mechanisms; costs ordered to defendants
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Full and Frank Disclosure / Material Non Disclosure, Scope and Proportionality of Search Orders, Inspection of Seized Electronic Records, Discovery and Supplemental Lists, Privilege Claims, Surveillance and Unclean Hands, Solicitor's Duties in Disclosure
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Evidence Law Search and Seizure Costs Law Anton Piller Order Full and Frank Disclosure / Material Non Disclosure +6 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 5 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

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 Civil Action Concerning Companies and Proprietary Claims; Application to Continue Anton Piller Order / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation Summons and Inspection Summons (application to Continue Ex Parte Anton Piller Order; Whether Seized Electronic Records May Be Inspected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure in the ex parte application justified discharging the Anton Piller order
  2. 2 Whether the Anton Piller order was overbroad in scope (Group Companies and cash takings)
  3. 3 Whether the defendants worked from undisclosed premises (Wanchai office) and whether that omission was material

Ratio Decidendi

The court found material non-disclosure in the ex parte application insofar as the Anton Piller order was drafted excessively wide (inclusion of numerous unrelated Group Companies and an overbroad paragraph concerning cash takings for companies the first defendant did not control). The omissions were material to the weighing exercise and rendered the order unjust. The court declined to exercise its discretion to continue the Anton Piller order and accordingly discharged the order and dismissed the Inspection Summons; instead the court ordered that discovery proceed by ordinary means and left preservation of seized materials intact for review by the parties' solicitors and the supervising...

Court Disposition

Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection Summons dismissed; discovery to proceed by ordinary mechanisms; costs ordered to defendants

Orders

  • Anton Piller order discharged
  • Inspection Summons dismissed