JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS

JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS

Defendants repeatedly failed to comply with peremptory orders for discovery and tracing, produced incomplete/confusing records and frustrated accountants' enquiries such that Price Waterhouse's reports were inconclusive; the conduct amounted to contumelious disregard of court orders and made a fair trial impossible, justifying striking out the defence and entry of judgment under Order 24 r.16(1).

Citation
JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS v. TONY WONG CHUN LOONG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: YELLOW WING LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: TAYU LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: EMPIRE PRINTING; 5th Plaintiff: SHARP GRAPHIC ART LIMITED; 6th Plaintiff: JADEMAN ENTERPRISES LIMITED; 7th Plaintiff: FAMOUS PHOTOTYPESETTING LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TONY WONG CHUN LOONG; 2nd Defendant: PATRICIA WONG MIU LING; 3rd Defendant: YIN SHUI YEE; 4th Defendant: THRAKI LIMITED; 5th Defendant: MONTHWAY LIMITED; 6th Defendant: KARAMBER COMPANY LIMITED; 7th Defendant: ALAN & ERIC FILMS; 8th Defendant: VOLOS LIMITED; 9th Defendant: NEW TIME MUSICAL WORLD; 10th Defendant: JADEMAN TRADING LIMITED; 11th Defendant: GRANT INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 12th Defendant: THE ADVENTURE MAGAZINE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 1992
Case Number
HCCL15/1990
Procedural Posture
Application Under Order 24 R.16(1) RSC to Strike Out Defence for Failure to Comply With Discovery Order in Aid of Mareva Injunction / Hearing and Judgment on Application to Strike Out; Judgment Delivered (will Hear Parties on Consequential Orders)
Outcome
Application granted in principle: defence struck out and plaintiffs entitled to judgment to be entered due to contumelious non-compliance (subject to parties being heard on consequential orders); relief sought against all defendants except the 3rd and 7th.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order, Discovery Obligations, Striking Out for Non Compliance, Tracing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Contumelious Non Compliance
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Injunctions Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Corporate Fraud Mareva Injunction Anton Piller Order +5 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

YELLOW WING LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

TAYU LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

EMPIRE PRINTING

4th Plaintiff

SHARP GRAPHIC ART LIMITED

5th Plaintiff

JADEMAN ENTERPRISES LIMITED

6th Plaintiff

FAMOUS PHOTOTYPESETTING LIMITED

7th Plaintiff

TONY WONG CHUN LOONG

1st Defendant

PATRICIA WONG MIU LING

2nd Defendant

YIN SHUI YEE

3rd Defendant

THRAKI LIMITED

4th Defendant

MONTHWAY LIMITED

5th Defendant

KARAMBER COMPANY LIMITED

6th Defendant

ALAN & ERIC FILMS

7th Defendant

VOLOS LIMITED

8th Defendant

NEW TIME MUSICAL WORLD

9th Defendant

JADEMAN TRADING LIMITED

10th Defendant

GRANT INVESTMENTS LIMITED

11th Defendant

THE ADVENTURE MAGAZINE LIMITED

12th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Order 24 R.16(1) RSC to Strike Out Defence for Failure to Comply With Discovery Order in Aid of Mareva Injunction / Hearing and Judgment on Application to Strike Out; Judgment Delivered (will Hear Parties on Consequential Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence should be struck out under Order 24 r.16(1) for failure to comply with discovery orders made in aid of a Mareva injunction
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' non-compliance was contumelious (deliberate and without excuse) such that a fair trial is no longer possible
  3. 3 Whether the defendants made substantial compliance via expert accountant reports (Price Waterhouse) despite missing documentation and incomplete tracing

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants repeatedly failed to comply with peremptory orders for discovery and tracing, produced incomplete/confusing records and frustrated accountants' enquiries such that Price Waterhouse's reports were inconclusive; the conduct amounted to contumelious disregard of court orders and made a fair trial impossible, justifying striking out the defence and entry of judgment under Order 24 r.16(1).

Court Disposition

Application granted in principle: defence struck out and plaintiffs entitled to judgment to be entered due to contumelious non-compliance (subject to parties being heard on consequential orders); relief sought against all defendants except the 3rd and 7th.

Orders

  • Defence struck out pursuant to Order 24 r.16(1) RSC
  • Judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs (against defendants as sought in summons: all except the 3rd and 7th)