MAN MI SANG AND ANOTHER v. MAN SHEK TONG AND OTHERS

MAN MI SANG AND ANOTHER v. MAN SHEK TONG AND OTHERS

The court held that the plaintiffs failed the necessity and proportionality limbs for wide-ranging specific discovery; only the Minutes Book entry recording the 1 November 2009 resolution authorizing two managers to handle tenancy matters was relevant and necessary and therefore must be disclosed. All other discovery requests (other minutes, Accounts, Bank Statements, tenancy agreements) were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate. The defendants' application to admit a supplemental expert report was dismissed because the report was out of time, deviated from the court's express directions (failing to state open market rents for specified dates), and lacked the required formalities;...

Citation
MAN MI SANG AND ANOTHER v. MAN SHEK TONG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): MAN MI SANG (文美生); 2nd Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): MAN LUK SING (文祿星); 1st Defendant (original Action): MAN SHEK TONG (文石堂); 2nd Defendant (original Action): MAN ON SUM (文安心); 3rd Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): 賴雨泉; 4th Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): 袁偉業; 5th Defendant (discontinued); 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim): MAN WING SHAU TSO (文永壽祖) also known as WING SHAU TSO (文永秀祖)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Case Number
HCA881/2012
Procedural Posture
High Court Action Concerning Alleged Breach of Trust and Tenancy of Tso Land; Original Action and Counterclaim / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing on Competing Summonses (discovery and Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons for specific discovery dismissed except order for disclosure of minutes dated 1 November 2009; defendants' summons to adduce supplemental expert report dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery (order 24), Expert Evidence (order 38), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Tso (new Territories) Manager Powers, Case Management, Proportionality of Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Trust Law Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Landlord and Tenant Law Discovery (order 24) Expert Evidence (order 38) Breach of Fiduciary Duty +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAN MI SANG (文美生)

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

MAN LUK SING (文祿星)

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

MAN SHEK TONG (文石堂)

1st Defendant (original Action)

MAN ON SUM (文安心)

2nd Defendant (original Action)

賴雨泉

3rd Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

袁偉業

4th Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

MAN WING SHAU TSO (文永壽祖) also known as WING SHAU TSO (文永秀祖)

5th Defendant (discontinued); 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

High Court Action Concerning Alleged Breach of Trust and Tenancy of Tso Land; Original Action and Counterclaim / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing on Competing Summonses (discovery and Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minutes Book, Accounts, Bank Statements and tenancy agreements are relevant and necessary for discovery under O.24 r.7
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for specific discovery (existence, possession, relevancy, necessity)
  3. 3 Whether the defendants validly authorized two managers to deal with tenancy matters and whether unanimous manager consent was required under New Territories/Tso law

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs failed the necessity and proportionality limbs for wide-ranging specific discovery; only the Minutes Book entry recording the 1 November 2009 resolution authorizing two managers to handle tenancy matters was relevant and necessary and therefore must be disclosed. All other discovery requests (other minutes, Accounts, Bank Statements, tenancy agreements) were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate. The defendants' application to admit a supplemental expert report was dismissed because the report was out of time, deviated from the court's express directions (failing to state open market rents for specified dates), and lacked the required formalities;...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons for specific discovery dismissed except order for disclosure of minutes dated 1 November 2009; defendants' summons to adduce supplemental expert report dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants shall disclose the minutes for the meeting on 1 November 2009 authorising the defendants to sign the tenancy agreement
  • Plaintiffs' summons dismissed in all other respects (no disclosure of other minutes, Accounts, Bank Statements or tenancy agreements)