Re Ma On Shan Whitehead Golf Centre Ltd.

Re Ma On Shan Whitehead Golf Centre Ltd.

Interrogatories (1)–(5) were refused because the matters they sought were apparent from existing correspondence; interrogatories (6)–(10), as amended, were ordered because they were necessary for the fair disposal of the petition and did not usurp the auditors’ function given that PwC had not obtained the information sought from the respondents.

Citation
Re Ma On Shan Whitehead Golf Centre Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: Wandex Limited; 1st Respondent: Summit Victory (HK) Limited; 2nd Respondent: Mr Lam Wai Leung; Subject Company: Ma On Shan Whitehead Golf Centre Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2002
Case Number
HCMP1363/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petition Under S.168 a (unfairly Prejudicial Conduct / Alternative Winding Up) / Chambers Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on 2nd Respondent; Decision on Summons
Outcome
Interrogatories numbered (6) to (10) as amended ordered to be answered; Interrogatories numbered (1) to (5) refused; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Winding Up, Audit and Accounts
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Interrogatories Discovery Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Winding Up Audit and Accounts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wandex Limited

Petitioner

Summit Victory (HK) Limited

1st Respondent

Mr Lam Wai Leung

2nd Respondent

Ma On Shan Whitehead Golf Centre Limited

Subject Company

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Petition Under S.168 a (unfairly Prejudicial Conduct / Alternative Winding Up) / Chambers Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on 2nd Respondent; Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court should order interrogatories under Order 26 of the Rules of the High Court as applied via Companies (Winding-up) Rules
  2. 2 Whether interrogatories numbered (1)–(5) and (6)–(10) should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether ordering interrogatories would usurp the auditors' (PwC) function

Ratio Decidendi

Interrogatories (1)–(5) were refused because the matters they sought were apparent from existing correspondence; interrogatories (6)–(10), as amended, were ordered because they were necessary for the fair disposal of the petition and did not usurp the auditors’ function given that PwC had not obtained the information sought from the respondents.

Court Disposition

Interrogatories numbered (6) to (10) as amended ordered to be answered; Interrogatories numbered (1) to (5) refused; costs reserved

Orders

  • Interrogatories numbered (6) to (10) as amended to be answered by the 2nd respondent (order made in terms of the summons)
  • Interrogatories numbered (1) to (5) not ordered