JUNESTAR INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

JUNESTAR INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for cross-examination was refused because the judge was not satisfied there was deliberate concealment or material untruths in the affirmations; however, because the disclosure order had not been fully complied with as to interests in 16 private companies, the defendant was ordered to file an affirmation disclosing those interests and company-held assets within 14 days; costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Citation
JUNESTAR INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Junestar Investment Corporation; 1st Defendant (original Action): Boldwin Construction Company Limited; 2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chan Shiu Chick; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim); Registered Shareholder of Junestar: Law Wai Duen Nina
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2003
Case Number
HCA1036/2002
Procedural Posture
Shareholder Derivative Action With Interlocutory Mareva Injunction and Disclosure Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Summons for Cross Examination and Compliance With Disclosure Order (20 June 2003 Decision)
Outcome
Application for cross-examination refused; order to provide further disclosure complied within 14 days; costs awarded as costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Disclosure Orders, Cross Examination on Affidavit, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Pre Judgment Relief
Source Language
EN
Civil Company Law Equity and Trusts Injunctions Family Law (matrimonial Proceedings) Mareva Injunction Disclosure Orders Cross Examination on Affidavit +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Junestar Investment Corporation

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Boldwin Construction Company Limited

1st Defendant (original Action)

Chan Shiu Chick

2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Law Wai Duen Nina

2nd Defendant (counterclaim); Registered Shareholder of Junestar

Procedural Posture

Shareholder Derivative Action With Interlocutory Mareva Injunction and Disclosure Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Summons for Cross Examination and Compliance With Disclosure Order (20 June 2003 Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order pre-judgment cross-examination of the defendant on affirmations filed pursuant to a disclosure order
  2. 2 Whether there has been deliberate concealment of assets sufficient to justify exceptional cross-examination relief
  3. 3 Whether the disclosure given concerning interests in 16 private companies and payments from BOC complied with the disclosure order

Ratio Decidendi

The application for cross-examination was refused because the judge was not satisfied there was deliberate concealment or material untruths in the affirmations; however, because the disclosure order had not been fully complied with as to interests in 16 private companies, the defendant was ordered to file an affirmation disclosing those interests and company-held assets within 14 days; costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application for cross-examination refused; order to provide further disclosure complied within 14 days; costs awarded as costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Application to cross-examine Dr Chan on his 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th affirmations refused.
  • Dr Chan ordered to file an affirmation disclosing his shares and interests in the 16 private companies mentioned in paragraph 16 of his 4th affirmation and his assets held in the names of those companies within 14 days from 20 June 2003.