PATRICK COWLEY AND ANOTHER (The Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the Property of the Bankrupt) v. ALL POWERFUL HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER

PATRICK COWLEY AND ANOTHER (The Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the Property of the Bankrupt) v. ALL POWERFUL HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER

The court granted orders for production and related affidavit relief in respect of companies in category A and specified items in category E because the trustees demonstrated both that the documents were reasonably required to perform their functions and a prima facie case that the bankrupt retained power or control over those documents; the court refused orders for categories B, C and D where documents were likely out of the bankrupt's power or held by liquidators and the balancing exercise did not support compulsion; the bankrupt was ordered to provide specific information by affidavit within 14 days and broader production within the framework of the summons.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1731
Parties
Applicant (trustee): Patrick Cowley; Applicant (joint and Several Trustee): Wong Wing-sze Tiffany; 1st Respondent: All Powerful Holding Limited; 2nd Respondent: All Powerful Investment Limited; Bankrupt: Mr Lau
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Case Number
HCB104/2017
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application Under Section 29 (production and Examination) / Judgment (chambers) on Summons for Production and Examination
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Examination of Bankrupt, Discovery and Control of Documents, Balancing Trustee's Investigatory Powers and Oppression to Third Parties, Costs and Third Party Funders
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Production of Documents Examination of Bankrupt Discovery and Control of Documents Balancing Trustee's Investigatory Powers and Oppression to Third Parties +1 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Cowley

Applicant (trustee)

Wong Wing-sze Tiffany

Applicant (joint and Several Trustee)

All Powerful Holding Limited

1st Respondent

All Powerful Investment Limited

2nd Respondent

Mr Lau

Bankrupt

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application Under Section 29 (production and Examination) / Judgment (chambers) on Summons for Production and Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees satisfied that documents/information were reasonably required to carry out their functions
  2. 2 Whether trustees established a prima facie case that the bankrupt had custody or power to produce the documents for various company categories
  3. 3 Proper construction and scope of 'power' under section 29 and in discovery context

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted orders for production and related affidavit relief in respect of companies in category A and specified items in category E because the trustees demonstrated both that the documents were reasonably required to perform their functions and a prima facie case that the bankrupt retained power or control over those documents; the court refused orders for categories B, C and D where documents were likely out of the bankrupt's power or held by liquidators and the balancing exercise did not support compulsion; the bankrupt was ordered to provide specific information by affidavit within 14 days and broader production within the framework of the summons.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Ordered that the bankrupt produce documents in schedule 2 relating to category A companies and specified category E items in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended summons (production timeframe as per paragraph 2 of the summons)
  • If the bankrupt is unable to provide documents, he must file an affirmation or affidavit identifying the documents, when they ceased to be in his custody or power and why, in terms of paragraph 3 of the amended summons (28 days where paragraph 3 ordered)