LAU CHI WAN JAMES & OTHERS v. IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS & ANOTHER

LAU CHI WAN JAMES & OTHERS v. IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS & ANOTHER

The court held that the Schedule 3 documents (payment records after 9 December 1996) were relevant and necessary because they could prove whether defendants continued to pay interest/capital after plaintiffs' alleged default and thus affect the accounting; Schedule 4 documents (records of purchaser/NCIL payments and recipient accounts) were relevant because the HK$100 million was paid in instalments and the payment records and recipient accounts bear directly on whether the sale produced a profit or loss and on whether the purchaser was CCIL or NCIL. Therefore the Master's order for specific discovery of Schedule 3 and 4 documents was correct and the appeal was dismissed (order modified...

Citation
LAU CHI WAN JAMES & OTHERS v. IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS & ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca18950/1998): LAU CHI WAN JAMES; 2nd Plaintiff (hca18950/1998): LAU CHI MING; 3rd Plaintiff (hca18950/1998): FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca18950/1998): IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS; 2nd Defendant (hca18950/1998): RITA FU; 1st Plaintiff (hca18995/1998): THOMAS IP FOOK CHUEN; 2nd Plaintiff (hca18995/1998): RITA FU; 1st Defendant (hca18995/1998): LAU CHI WANG; 2nd Defendant (hca18995/1998): LAU CHI MING; 3rd Defendant (hca18995/1998): FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2001
Case Number
HCA18950/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Discovery Order (consolidated Actions) / Appeal From Master's Order; Reasons for Judgment at First Instance on Discovery (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order for specific discovery of Schedule 3 and 4 documents affirmed with time to run from dismissal of the appeal
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Disclosure Obligations, Joint Venture/partnership Accounting, Sale of Corporate Project and Allocation of Proceeds
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company and Corporate Law Property Law Equity and Trusts Specific Discovery Disclosure Obligations Joint Venture/partnership Accounting Sale of Corporate Project and Allocation of Proceeds

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU CHI WAN JAMES

1st Plaintiff (hca18950/1998)

LAU CHI MING

2nd Plaintiff (hca18950/1998)

FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff (hca18950/1998)

IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS

1st Defendant (hca18950/1998)

RITA FU

2nd Defendant (hca18950/1998)

THOMAS IP FOOK CHUEN

1st Plaintiff (hca18995/1998)

RITA FU

2nd Plaintiff (hca18995/1998)

LAU CHI WANG

1st Defendant (hca18995/1998)

LAU CHI MING

2nd Defendant (hca18995/1998)

FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant (hca18995/1998)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Discovery Order (consolidated Actions) / Appeal From Master's Order; Reasons for Judgment at First Instance on Discovery (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs had fully paid their agreed contributions (interest and capital) for 30% share of LWDL
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between parties amounted to a partnership/joint venture requiring accounting
  3. 3 Whether the sale of the joint venture was to CCIL or NCIL and whether plaintiffs were informed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Schedule 3 documents (payment records after 9 December 1996) were relevant and necessary because they could prove whether defendants continued to pay interest/capital after plaintiffs' alleged default and thus affect the accounting; Schedule 4 documents (records of purchaser/NCIL payments and recipient accounts) were relevant because the HK$100 million was paid in instalments and the payment records and recipient accounts bear directly on whether the sale produced a profit or loss and on whether the purchaser was CCIL or NCIL. Therefore the Master's order for specific discovery of Schedule 3 and 4 documents was correct and the appeal was dismissed (order modified...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order for specific discovery of Schedule 3 and 4 documents affirmed with time to run from dismissal of the appeal

Orders

  • Defendants ordered to give specific discovery of documents in Schedule 3 of the plaintiffs' summons dated 10 July 2001 (all documents relating to payment records of interest or capital made by the 1st and/or 2nd defendants pursuant to the alleged Varied Agreement after 9 December 1996)
  • Defendants ordered to give specific discovery of documents in Schedule 4 of the plaintiffs' summons dated 10 July 2001 (all documents relating to records for payments made by the Purchaser/New Crompton International Limited, including copies of bank deposits, transfers and cheques paid to Rita Fu and/or Tom Ip's...