CHINA REAL ESTATES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. GOLD BLESS INTERNATIONAL INVEST LTD

CHINA REAL ESTATES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. GOLD BLESS INTERNATIONAL INVEST LTD

The discovery application was dismissed because the Respondent failed to specify any precise, statutory ground under s95 to set aside or resist enforcement; allegations of collusion, fraud and breaches were unparticularised and speculative so the documents sought were not shown to be relevant or necessary to any issue in the enforcement proceedings; prior disclosure in the BVI and available remedies there made the order unnecessary and the application constituted an abusive fishing expedition.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1868
Parties
Applicant (award‑creditor): Applicant; Respondent (judgment‑debtor): Respondent; Third Party (shareholder/director): Mr Yang Wang Jian
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 August 2018
Case Number
HCCT46/2017
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Arbitral Award; Application for Discovery / Application for Discovery Under O 24 R7 a in Enforcement Proceedings Following Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award (9/17 Order)
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Enforcement/leave, Third‑party Discovery, Charging Order, Costs, Proportionality and Civil Justice Reform
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Discovery Abuse of Process Enforcement of Arbitral Award Setting Aside Enforcement/leave Third‑party Discovery +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant (award‑creditor)

Respondent

Respondent (judgment‑debtor)

Mr Yang Wang Jian

Third Party (shareholder/director)

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Arbitral Award; Application for Discovery / Application for Discovery Under O 24 R7 a in Enforcement Proceedings Following Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award (9/17 Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a discovery order against a third party under O 24 r7A should be granted in enforcement proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent has specified a ground to set aside or resist enforcement of the award under s95 of the Arbitration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the discovery application is a permissible, particularised request or an impermissible fishing expedition and abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery application was dismissed because the Respondent failed to specify any precise, statutory ground under s95 to set aside or resist enforcement; allegations of collusion, fraud and breaches were unparticularised and speculative so the documents sought were not shown to be relevant or necessary to any issue in the enforcement proceedings; prior disclosure in the BVI and available remedies there made the order unnecessary and the application constituted an abusive fishing expedition.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery dismissed as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Discovery application dismissed
  • Costs awarded against Mr Yu to be paid to the Applicant