LAM SIU SUN DENNIS AND ANOTHER v. TAM MAN CHUN AND ANOTHER

LAM SIU SUN DENNIS AND ANOTHER v. TAM MAN CHUN AND ANOTHER

The originating summons was dismissed because (1) the ex parte leave to commence committal related only to breaches existing at the time of the leave and the specific discovery order as first made did not bear a penal notice, so the procedural prerequisites for enforcement were not met and the committal proceedings were misconceived; and (2) independently, the alleged non‑compliance and affirmational inaccuracies were trivial, not shown to be dishonest or to cause serious prejudice, and committal would be oppressive and disproportionate; costs were awarded to defendants on indemnity basis.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6197
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Lam Siu Sun Dennis; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Moses; 1st Defendant: Tam Man Chun; 2nd Defendant: Chiu Sze Wai Wilfred
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
HCMP1092/2024
Procedural Posture
Committal (contempt) Application by Originating Summons Under Order 52 R.3 / Judgment Following Multi‑day Hearing on Originating Summons
Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal, Penal Notice Requirement, Service of Order, Specific Discovery, Leave to Apply for Committal, Oppression in Civil Enforcement, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Disclosure/discovery Costs Committal Penal Notice Requirement Service of Order Specific Discovery +3 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Siu Sun Dennis

1st Plaintiff

Lee Moses

2nd Plaintiff

Tam Man Chun

1st Defendant

Chiu Sze Wai Wilfred

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal (contempt) Application by Originating Summons Under Order 52 R.3 / Judgment Following Multi‑day Hearing on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ex parte leave to commence committal could properly be granted where the underlying discovery order lacked a penal notice at the time leave was sought
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the specific discovery order and whether any breach was accompanied by the requisite culpable state of mind to establish contempt
  3. 3 Whether the alleged false statements in affirmations amounted to dishonesty or recklessness warranting committal

Ratio Decidendi

The originating summons was dismissed because (1) the ex parte leave to commence committal related only to breaches existing at the time of the leave and the specific discovery order as first made did not bear a penal notice, so the procedural prerequisites for enforcement were not met and the committal proceedings were misconceived; and (2) independently, the alleged non‑compliance and affirmational inaccuracies were trivial, not shown to be dishonest or to cause serious prejudice, and committal would be oppressive and disproportionate; costs were awarded to defendants on indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Originating Summons dismissed
  • Costs to the Defendants to be taxed on the indemnity basis