KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

The court held that the word 'another' in the discovery order should not extend to any person or entity generally because that would be an unjustified fishing expedition given the late stage of the proceedings; instead 'another' was to be replaced by (i) the 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff or Yew and/or (ii) bank accounts held or controlled by the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff or Yew, and ordered compliance within seven days.

Citation
KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014): Komal Patel; 2nd Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014): Jason Mark Cohen; 3rd Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014): Harilaos Apostolides; 4th Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014): Rocky Cape International Limited; 1st Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); Plaintiff (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 1st Defendant (hca 2063/2015): Chris Au; 2nd Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (hca 2063/2015): Ho Ching Yi Elsa; 3rd Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); 7th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 3rd Defendant (hca 2063/2015): Retribution Limited; 5th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014): Essence Investments Limited; 6th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014): Yew Kuan Cheong; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 4th Defendant (hca 2063/2015): Prime Mark Group Limited; 1st Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Kudeta Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd; 3rd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2016
Case Number
HCA2063/2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Vary Terms of Discovery Order / Application in Chambers Following Prior Discovery Order; Decision on Variation of Order (written Submissions and Judgment)
Outcome
Application to vary order granted in part; scope of discovery narrowed and clarified; broader extension refused.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Variation of Court Order, Beneficial Ownership, Bank Records and Tracing
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Company Law Trusts and Fiduciary Relations Specific Discovery Variation of Court Order Beneficial Ownership Bank Records and Tracing

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komal Patel

1st Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014)

Jason Mark Cohen

2nd Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014)

Harilaos Apostolides

3rd Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014)

Rocky Cape International Limited

4th Plaintiff (original Action HCA 183/2014)

Chris Au

1st Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); Plaintiff (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 1st Defendant (hca 2063/2015)

Ho Ching Yi Elsa

2nd Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (hca 2063/2015)

Retribution Limited

3rd Defendant (original Action HCA 183/2014); 7th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 3rd Defendant (hca 2063/2015)

Essence Investments Limited

5th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014)

Yew Kuan Cheong

6th Defendant (counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014)

Prime Mark Group Limited

3rd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim HCA 183/2014); 4th Defendant (hca 2063/2015)

Kudeta Limited

1st Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd

2nd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd

3rd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application to Vary Terms of Discovery Order / Application in Chambers Following Prior Discovery Order; Decision on Variation of Order (written Submissions and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the term 'another' in a discovery order
  2. 2 Scope and limits of specific discovery at an advanced stage of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the ordered disclosure would constitute a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the word 'another' in the discovery order should not extend to any person or entity generally because that would be an unjustified fishing expedition given the late stage of the proceedings; instead 'another' was to be replaced by (i) the 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff or Yew and/or (ii) bank accounts held or controlled by the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff or Yew, and ordered compliance within seven days.

Court Disposition

Application to vary order granted in part; scope of discovery narrowed and clarified; broader extension refused.

Orders

  • The word 'another' in paragraph 50 of the decision and order is replaced by (i) the 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff or Yew; and/or (ii) bank accounts held or controlled by the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff or Yew.
  • The discovery ordered is to be complied with within 7 days from the date of the decision.