SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS

The summons to admit Mainland law expert evidence was dismissed because the SFC failed to establish that the proposed evidence was necessary to resolve any issue in the proceedings: the PRC Regulations were only part of the factual background and not central to causation; the court could read the Regulations and the proposed expert (a Mainland litigation lawyer without mining specialisation) would only assist in understanding the Regulations rather than how businessmen would have acted; therefore the evidence was not sufficiently necessary or relevant to justify admission.

Citation
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Securities and Futures Commission; 1st Respondent: Wong Yuen Yee; 2nd Respondent: Wong Yao Wing Robert; 3rd Respondent: Wong Kwok Sing; 4th Respondent: Lam Shiu San; 5th Respondent: Inno-Tech Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2016
Case Number
HCMP241/2015
Procedural Posture
Securities and Futures Ordinance S.214 Petition (disqualification/compensation) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Mainland Law Evidence (chambers Hearing)
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Disqualification Under S.214 SFO, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Foreign Law Evidence, Practice Direction Compliance
Source Language
EN
Securities Law Company Law Evidence Civil Procedure Cross Border/prc Law Directors' Duties Disqualification Under S.214 SFO Admissibility of Expert Evidence +2 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securities and Futures Commission

Petitioner

Wong Yuen Yee

1st Respondent

Wong Yao Wing Robert

2nd Respondent

Wong Kwok Sing

3rd Respondent

Lam Shiu San

4th Respondent

Inno-Tech Holdings Limited

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Securities and Futures Ordinance S.214 Petition (disqualification/compensation) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Mainland Law Evidence (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to admit expert evidence on Mainland law
  2. 2 Whether the proposed evidence is relevant and necessary to determine issues in the s.214 proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the SFC complied with Practice Direction 5.2 requirements for expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to admit Mainland law expert evidence was dismissed because the SFC failed to establish that the proposed evidence was necessary to resolve any issue in the proceedings: the PRC Regulations were only part of the factual background and not central to causation; the court could read the Regulations and the proposed expert (a Mainland litigation lawyer without mining specialisation) would only assist in understanding the Regulations rather than how businessmen would have acted; therefore the evidence was not sufficiently necessary or relevant to justify admission.