CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Leave to adduce expert evidence was granted because the nature and objective value of FISH and SPR are central to the plaintiffs' claims, the subject matter falls within areas requiring specialised expertise, the proposed experts' qualifications were not challenged at this stage, and the court cannot be fully informed by the disclosed documents alone; consequential directions were ordered and the 2nd Defendant was permitted to adduce valuation evidence; the application to restrain further interlocutory applications was dismissed for lack of proper supporting evidence.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1181
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China Medical Technologies, Inc (In Liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: CMED Technologies Ltd; 3rd Plaintiffs: Cosimo Borrelli and Yuen Lai Yee (as joint and several liquidators of China Medical Technologies, Inc); 1st Defendant: Wu Xiaodong; 2nd Defendant: Samson Tsang Tak Yung; 3rd Defendant: Chen Zhong; 4th Defendant: Zhu Feng (Charles); 5th Defendant: Chong Wing Hip; 6th Defendant: Hao Xiaoqing Allan; 7th Defendant: Supreme Well Investments Limited; 8th Defendant: East Hope International Limited; 9th Defendant: Cheer Link International Limited; 10th Defendant: Innovative Technology Investment Limited; 11th Defendant: Dynamic Sense Limited; 12th Defendant: Time Region Holdings Limited; 13th Defendant: Bi Xiaoqiong; 14th Defendant: Worldpro Investments Limited; 15th Defendant: Long Chart Investments Limited; 16th Defendant: Chavis Investments Limited; 17th Defendant: Sinowell International Investment Limited; 18th Defendant: Chengxuan International Ltd; 19th Defendant: Weixiao Medical Technology Limited; 20th Defendant: WB International Holding Pte Ltd; 21st Defendant: Max Prosper Enterprises Limited; 22nd Defendant: Jun Yun Bi; 23rd Defendant: Global Flash Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Case Number
HCA3391/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud and Recovery / Interlocutory Application for Expert Evidence (directions)
Outcome
Summons granted in part: leave granted to Plaintiffs to adduce expert evidence on FISH, SPR and valuation; 2nd Defendant granted leave to adduce expert evidence on valuation; para 7 (prohibition on further interlocutory applications) dismissed; consequential directions adjourned pending agreed draft directions.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Valuation, Misappropriation of Funds, Interlocutory Directions, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Fraud Evidence Trusts Expert Evidence Valuation Misappropriation of Funds +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Medical Technologies, Inc (In Liquidation)

1st Plaintiff

CMED Technologies Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Cosimo Borrelli and Yuen Lai Yee (as joint and several liquidators of China Medical Technologies, Inc)

3rd Plaintiffs

Wu Xiaodong

1st Defendant

Samson Tsang Tak Yung

2nd Defendant

Chen Zhong

3rd Defendant

Zhu Feng (Charles)

4th Defendant

Chong Wing Hip

5th Defendant

Hao Xiaoqing Allan

6th Defendant

Supreme Well Investments Limited

7th Defendant

East Hope International Limited

8th Defendant

Cheer Link International Limited

9th Defendant

Innovative Technology Investment Limited

10th Defendant

Dynamic Sense Limited

11th Defendant

Time Region Holdings Limited

12th Defendant

Bi Xiaoqiong

13th Defendant

Worldpro Investments Limited

14th Defendant

Long Chart Investments Limited

15th Defendant

Chavis Investments Limited

16th Defendant

Sinowell International Investment Limited

17th Defendant

Chengxuan International Ltd

18th Defendant

Weixiao Medical Technology Limited

19th Defendant

WB International Holding Pte Ltd

20th Defendant

Max Prosper Enterprises Limited

21st Defendant

Jun Yun Bi

22nd Defendant

Global Flash Limited

23rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Fraud and Recovery / Interlocutory Application for Expert Evidence (directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce expert evidence on (a) nature and market for FISH technology, (b) nature and market for SPR technology, and (c) valuation of FISH and SPR at acquisition dates
  2. 2 Whether existing documentary material obviates need for expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether a single joint valuation expert should be appointed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce expert evidence was granted because the nature and objective value of FISH and SPR are central to the plaintiffs' claims, the subject matter falls within areas requiring specialised expertise, the proposed experts' qualifications were not challenged at this stage, and the court cannot be fully informed by the disclosed documents alone; consequential directions were ordered and the 2nd Defendant was permitted to adduce valuation evidence; the application to restrain further interlocutory applications was dismissed for lack of proper supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Summons granted in part: leave granted to Plaintiffs to adduce expert evidence on FISH, SPR and valuation; 2nd Defendant granted leave to adduce expert evidence on valuation; para 7 (prohibition on further interlocutory applications) dismissed; consequential directions adjourned pending agreed draft directions.

Orders

  • Order in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Amended Summons granted
  • Leave granted to the 2nd Defendant to adduce expert evidence at trial on valuation issues