WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS

WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS

The appeal is dismissed: defendants are bound by their pleaded defence (including the amended paragraph 27) and must provide the further and better particulars ordered by the Master (identifying payments, sellers and alleged mainland beneficiary companies and particulars of arrangements); an affirmation cannot be used to contradict the pleaded case; costs are awarded against the defendants and time for compliance is extended by 14 days.

Citation
WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wong Luen Hang; 2nd Plaintiff: Tsui Kwok; 1st Defendant: Chan Yuk Lung; 2nd Defendant: Chan Yuk Wain; 3rd Defendant: Sun Fu Yee Limited; 4th Defendant: Wang Bon Company Limited; 5th Defendant: Topmix Industrial Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2015
Case Number
HCA1382/2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Derivative Action / Appeal Against Master's Order for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Further and Better Particulars, Amendment of Pleadings, Unpleaded Defences, Costs
Source Language
EN
Corporate Law Civil Procedure Discovery and Disclosure Derivative Action Further and Better Particulars Amendment of Pleadings Unpleaded Defences Costs

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Luen Hang

1st Plaintiff

Tsui Kwok

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Yuk Lung

1st Defendant

Chan Yuk Wain

2nd Defendant

Sun Fu Yee Limited

3rd Defendant

Wang Bon Company Limited

4th Defendant

Topmix Industrial Limited

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Common Law Derivative Action / Appeal Against Master's Order for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants can be compelled to provide particulars identifying sellers of goods and mainland beneficiary companies
  2. 2 Whether an affirmation alleging a different factual case can be used to resist particulars when it conflicts with pleaded defence
  3. 3 Whether the Master had jurisdiction to order particulars without an express request

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed: defendants are bound by their pleaded defence (including the amended paragraph 27) and must provide the further and better particulars ordered by the Master (identifying payments, sellers and alleged mainland beneficiary companies and particulars of arrangements); an affirmation cannot be used to contradict the pleaded case; costs are awarded against the defendants and time for compliance is extended by 14 days.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to provide further and better particulars as ordered by Master K Lo (including a table identifying each payment from Seibon and Regal into the 4th defendant's account with date, amount and purpose)
  • Defendants to identify the seller(s) of the goods which gave rise to the payments from Seibon and Regal into the 4th defendant's account