FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Court declined broad, post-April 2016 discovery as irrelevant and a fishing expedition, but granted targeted discovery necessary to reconcile the alleged misappropriations pleaded in the petitions: directed disclosure of bank statements/passbooks for specified accounts for the relevant period, required affirmations from respondents confirming disclosure of documents in categories 1 and 3 in their possession, and ordered verification of accounting records and vouchers for 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016; apportioned costs against respondents (20%).

Citation
FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Fung Tin Yau (馮天佑); 1st Respondent: Fung Tin Shing (馮天承); 2nd Respondent: Fung Wing See (馮穎思); 3rd Respondent (hccw 170/2016): Great Anchor International Limited; 3rd Respondent (hccw 171/2016): Maxfortune Trading Limited; 3rd Respondent (hccw 172/2016): Premium Management Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Case Number
HCCW172/2016
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Summonses for Discovery Heard in Chambers
Outcome
Interlocutory applications partially granted: targeted discovery and affirmations ordered; wider discovery refused; costs apportioned to respondents.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Relevance of Documents, Misappropriation Allegations, Fishing Expedition Doctrine, Costs of Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Discovery Tax Law Trusts and Estates Specific Discovery Relevance of Documents Misappropriation Allegations +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Tin Yau (馮天佑)

Petitioner

Fung Tin Shing (馮天承)

1st Respondent

Fung Wing See (馮穎思)

2nd Respondent

Great Anchor International Limited

3rd Respondent (hccw 170/2016)

Maxfortune Trading Limited

3rd Respondent (hccw 171/2016)

Premium Management Limited

3rd Respondent (hccw 172/2016)

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Summonses for Discovery Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the categories of documents sought are relevant to the petitions' pleaded complaints
  2. 2 Whether bank statements and payment records after April 2016 are discoverable or constitute a fishing expedition
  3. 3 Whether respondents have disclosed all documents in their possession, custody or power relating to management accounts and removed books

Ratio Decidendi

Court declined broad, post-April 2016 discovery as irrelevant and a fishing expedition, but granted targeted discovery necessary to reconcile the alleged misappropriations pleaded in the petitions: directed disclosure of bank statements/passbooks for specified accounts for the relevant period, required affirmations from respondents confirming disclosure of documents in categories 1 and 3 in their possession, and ordered verification of accounting records and vouchers for 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016; apportioned costs against respondents (20%).

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications partially granted: targeted discovery and affirmations ordered; wider discovery refused; costs apportioned to respondents.

Orders

  • 1st and 2nd respondents to file an affirmation confirming that they have disclosed the documents falling within categories 1 and 3 that are in their possession, custody or power.
  • Disclosure to be provided of bank statements or passbooks for the following accounts for the period relevant to the complaint in paragraph 27 (up to 30 April 2016): Great Anchor OCBC 681288-100; Great Anchor OCBC 681288-160; Great Anchor Wing Fat Securities 07000617; Maxfortune OCBC 1915040-300; Maxfortune OCBC...