LAM SIU SUN DENNIS AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG TAK MAN DESMOND AND OTHERS

LAM SIU SUN DENNIS AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG TAK MAN DESMOND AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs, as former partners, retain a substantive right under the Partnership Ordinance to access the firm’s records and are entitled to a preliminary inspection of the 122 cartons held in Crown despite the prior undertaking requiring joint consent because the application is a court case‑management order to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 78
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action) and 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Lam Siu Sun Dennis; 2nd Plaintiff (original Action) and 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Lee Moses; 1st Defendant (original Action) and 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Cheung Tak Man Desmond; 2nd Defendant (original Action) and 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Chiu Sze Wai Wilfred; 3rd Defendant (original Action): CHAN IDA; 4th Defendant (original Action): Wai Kit Shun; 5th Defendant (original Action): Lai Ip Wah Alan; 6th Defendant (original Action): Tam Man Chun; 7th Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Yan Lai Yu Jamie
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Case Number
HCA2413/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Partnership Dispute and Discovery/case Management Application / Discovery Stage Application to Retrieve Partnership Documents and for Case Management Directions
Outcome
Order made compelling the 1st defendant to sign the instruction to Crown to retrieve 122 cartons and permitting plaintiffs to inspect and copy retrieved items under specified safeguards; plaintiffs awarded costs against the 1st defendant of the application; liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
Access to Partnership Records, Inspection of Documents, Undertakings Relating to Document Retrieval, Discovery Scope Vs Preliminary Search, Alleged Unauthorised Transfers and Falsified Bills, Rectification Following Firm Merger, Tampering Risk and Safeguards
Source Language
en
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Discovery Costs Inherent Jurisdiction Access to Partnership Records Inspection of Documents Undertakings Relating to Document Retrieval +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Siu Sun Dennis

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

Lee Moses

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

Cheung Tak Man Desmond

1st Defendant (original Action) and 3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Chiu Sze Wai Wilfred

2nd Defendant (original Action) and 4th Defendant (counterclaim)

CHAN IDA

3rd Defendant (original Action)

Wai Kit Shun

4th Defendant (original Action)

Lai Ip Wah Alan

5th Defendant (original Action)

Tam Man Chun

6th Defendant (original Action)

Yan Lai Yu Jamie

7th Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Partnership Dispute and Discovery/case Management Application / Discovery Stage Application to Retrieve Partnership Documents and for Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether former partners may access firm documents in Crown storage notwithstanding an undertaking requiring joint consent
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' request is a prohibited fishing expedition or a legitimate preliminary search of their own documents
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant unreasonably withheld consent to retrieval

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs, as former partners, retain a substantive right under the Partnership Ordinance to access the firm’s records and are entitled to a preliminary inspection of the 122 cartons held in Crown despite the prior undertaking requiring joint consent because the application is a court case‑management order to facilitate plaintiffs’ discovery obligations rather than an opposing‑party discovery request; the 1st defendant’s objections (fishing, cost, tampering) were insufficient when plaintiffs demonstrated likely relevance and offered undertakings and cost allocation, so the court ordered the 1st defendant to sign the instruction and set protective procedures for inspection.

Court Disposition

Order made compelling the 1st defendant to sign the instruction to Crown to retrieve 122 cartons and permitting plaintiffs to inspect and copy retrieved items under specified safeguards; plaintiffs awarded costs against the 1st defendant of the application; liberty to apply.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs’ solicitors MinterEllison LLP to give undertakings to store Retrieved Items securely, not to tamper with them and to comply with the order
  • 1st and 2nd defendants to cause Messrs Herbert Tsoi & Partners to sign and return the Order Form to plaintiffs within 7 days to enable retrieval of the 122 cartons