CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANTOHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANTOHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

The Subject Document was both relevant and necessary under the Peruvian Guano test to resolve intertwined disputes about how the acquisition of D2 was financed and how the machines were accounted for; the Master Order requiring disclosure was therefore correctly made and should be upheld; the appeal is dismissed and costs follow the event with specified orders on costs.

Citation
CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANTOHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chung Pui Tak; 2nd Plaintiff: Fine Group Paper Product Limited; 1st Defendant: Tam Chi Leung Nolan; 2nd Defendant: Best Tri Printing Company Limited; 3rd Defendant: Fine Group Trading Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2015
Case Number
HCA1439/2012
Procedural Posture
High Court Action Discovery Dispute Under Order 24 / Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Order upheld
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Trust Over Shares, Joint Venture Dispute, Share Acquisition Financing, Admissibility of Expert Affirmation, Appeal From Master
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Discovery and Disclosure Costs Discovery of Documents Trust Over Shares Joint Venture Dispute +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chung Pui Tak

1st Plaintiff

Fine Group Paper Product Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Tam Chi Leung Nolan

1st Defendant

Best Tri Printing Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Fine Group Trading Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Action Discovery Dispute Under Order 24 / Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trust existed in respect of 40% of D2's shares (Trust for D2 Shares) or alternatively P1 only had an option to acquire 40% (the Option)
  2. 2 Whether the Subject Document (D2 audited accounts year ended 31/3/2004) was relevant and necessary for discovery under the Peruvian Guano test
  3. 3 Whether the Master Order requiring discovery should be upheld on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Subject Document was both relevant and necessary under the Peruvian Guano test to resolve intertwined disputes about how the acquisition of D2 was financed and how the machines were accounted for; the Master Order requiring disclosure was therefore correctly made and should be upheld; the appeal is dismissed and costs follow the event with specified orders on costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Order upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that 2nd defendant (D2) do pay the plaintiffs costs of the Appeal (including all costs reserved) to be taxed if not agreed