WONG YEE CHUK AND ANOTHER v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

WONG YEE CHUK AND ANOTHER v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

The summons for discovery in respect of classes (b) and (g) was justified because the trademark transfer documents were referred to in the pleadings and discoverable; the Petitioners failed to give a clear response to discovery requests, and therefore must within seven days either produce the documents or confirm they do not have them and state whether they remain under their control; because the hearing and summons could have been avoided, the Petitioners must pay the 2nd Respondent's costs assessed at HK$100,000.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3084
Parties
1st Petitioner: WONG YEE CHUK; 2nd Petitioner: CHENG WAI KING, PAT; 1st Respondent: LO PO WAI, HARRY; 2nd Respondent: PAN SHI LIANG; 3rd Respondent: HARSEN ENGINEERING LIMITED; 4th Respondent: HARSEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 5th Respondent: HARSEN (CHINA) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2021
Case Number
HCMP3365/2016
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Section 724(1) of the Companies Ordinance (cap 622) / Interlocutory Summons for Discovery Pursuant to Order 24 RHC Heard in Chambers
Outcome
Summons for discovery granted in respect of classes (b) and (g); compliance ordered within seven days; costs awarded against the Petitioners.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Costs, Trademarks, Companies Ordinance S724, Document Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Discovery Costs Trademarks Companies Ordinance S724 Document Disclosure

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

Parties

WONG YEE CHUK

1st Petitioner

CHENG WAI KING, PAT

2nd Petitioner

LO PO WAI, HARRY

1st Respondent

PAN SHI LIANG

2nd Respondent

HARSEN ENGINEERING LIMITED

3rd Respondent

HARSEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

4th Respondent

HARSEN (CHINA) LIMITED

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Section 724(1) of the Companies Ordinance (cap 622) / Interlocutory Summons for Discovery Pursuant to Order 24 RHC Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to mainland trademark application transfers (classes (b) and (g)) referred to in the pleadings are discoverable
  2. 2 Whether Petitioners' failure to respond to discovery notices justifies an order and costs
  3. 3 Appropriate costs for a summons that could have been avoided

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for discovery in respect of classes (b) and (g) was justified because the trademark transfer documents were referred to in the pleadings and discoverable; the Petitioners failed to give a clear response to discovery requests, and therefore must within seven days either produce the documents or confirm they do not have them and state whether they remain under their control; because the hearing and summons could have been avoided, the Petitioners must pay the 2nd Respondent's costs assessed at HK$100,000.

Court Disposition

Summons for discovery granted in respect of classes (b) and (g); compliance ordered within seven days; costs awarded against the Petitioners.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Petitioners are to within seven days provide to the 2nd Respondent copies of the documents falling within classes (b) and (g) of the summons or confirm to the 2nd Respondent's solicitors that they do not have any such documents and explain whether any such documents remain within their control.
  • The Petitioners are to pay the 2nd Respondent's costs of and occasioned by the summons dated 26 April 2021, summarily assessed at HK$100,000.