CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

The court allowed the contested expert evidence on paragraph 1(b) but constrained its scope to include both parties' proposed issues, ordered a sequential exchange of expert reports (plaintiffs first, defendants in response, plaintiffs reply) with 42-day intervals, disallowed affidavit preparation costs, and assessed the costs of the application at HKD 140,000 to be in the cause.

Citation
CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHUNG PUI TAK; 2nd Plaintiff: FINE GROUP PAPER PRODUCT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN; 2nd Defendant: BEST TRI PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: FINE GROUP TRADING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2016
Case Number
HCA1439/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Company/share Dispute / Interlocutory (expert Evidence Application)
Outcome
Leave granted to adduce expert accounting evidence on terms; consent order to amend expert evidence summons granted; costs assessed and ordered in the cause.
Legal Topics
Director's Duties, Breach of Trust, Accounting Evidence, Share Purchase/option Dispute, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Company Law Trusts Civil Procedure Accounting/auditing Evidence (expert Evidence) Director's Duties Breach of Trust Accounting Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUNG PUI TAK

1st Plaintiff

FINE GROUP PAPER PRODUCT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN

1st Defendant

BEST TRI PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

FINE GROUP TRADING LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Company/share Dispute / Interlocutory (expert Evidence Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert accounting evidence on paragraph 1(b) should be admitted and its proper scope
  2. 2 Whether the accounting treatment of two printing machines required capitalization in audited financial statements
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence can assist in determining if the 1st defendant held shares on trust for the 1st plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the contested expert evidence on paragraph 1(b) but constrained its scope to include both parties' proposed issues, ordered a sequential exchange of expert reports (plaintiffs first, defendants in response, plaintiffs reply) with 42-day intervals, disallowed affidavit preparation costs, and assessed the costs of the application at HKD 140,000 to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to adduce expert accounting evidence on terms; consent order to amend expert evidence summons granted; costs assessed and ordered in the cause.

Orders

  • By consent, order in terms as per paragraph 8 of the decision
  • Paragraph 1(b) of the Re-Amended summons to be as per paragraph 23 of the decision (instructions to experts to include both parties' formulations)