CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

The court held the interrogatories were relevant because the 1st Defendant's prior trading account and experience bear on the credibility and central issue of whether he authorized a cash or margin account; the order permitting the 2nd Defendant to serve interrogatories was therefore upheld and the relevant party was ordered to answer within 28 days.

Citation
CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: POSEIDON TREASURE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN YUNG; 2nd Defendant: SO CHI YUK
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Case Number
HCA18300/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Debt Recovery (margin Trading Account) / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing (summons to Revoke Pre Trial Order)
Outcome
Summons to revoke the order refused; order permitting interrogatories upheld
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Relevance, Warranty of Authority, Margin Trading Account, Discovery, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Securities Agency Civil Procedure Moneylending Interrogatories Relevance Warranty of Authority +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

POSEIDON TREASURE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

CHAN YUNG

1st Defendant

SO CHI YUK

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Debt Recovery (margin Trading Account) / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing (summons to Revoke Pre Trial Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether order permitting interrogatories should be revoked
  2. 2 Whether the proposed interrogatories are relevant to pleaded issues
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories amount to impermissible fishing or are oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the interrogatories were relevant because the 1st Defendant's prior trading account and experience bear on the credibility and central issue of whether he authorized a cash or margin account; the order permitting the 2nd Defendant to serve interrogatories was therefore upheld and the relevant party was ordered to answer within 28 days.

Court Disposition

Summons to revoke the order refused; order permitting interrogatories upheld

Orders

  • Order affirmed permitting 2nd Defendant to serve interrogatories on 1st Defendant
  • The party directed to answer the interrogatories within 28 days of the ruling