K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

The strike-out application was dismissed because, on the materials, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's case must fail; the plaintiff's factual matrix (connections, draft agreements, public announcement and banking records showing payments to SIC) could, with cross-examination and inference, support a trial on agency and knowing receipt. Discovery was ordered in part: D2 must disclose filings/submissions to the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) for 1 March 2005 to 11 December 2010 (with wording narrowed), but broad bank-document and other classes were refused as fishing. Costs orders were made nisi with allocation specified.

Citation
K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: K & L Gates; 1st Defendant: Navin Kumar Aggarwal; 2nd Defendant: Sat Ieng Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada; 3rd Defendant: Golden Way Global Limited; 4th Defendant: Southbank Investments Pty Limited; 5th Defendant: Sat Fat Limited (also known as Sat Fat Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada); 6th Defendant: Ever Discovery Limited; 7th Defendant: Burswood Nominees Limited; 8th Defendant: Golden Future (Management Services) Limited; 9th Defendant: Venetian Macau Limited; 10th Defendant: Wynn International Marketing Limited; 11th Defendant: V-HK Services Limited; 12th Defendant: Golden Way Company Limited (also known as Golden Way Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada); 13th Defendant: Crown Melbourne Limited; 14th Defendant: Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A; Defendant (hca 349/2012): Melco Crown Gaming (Macau) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Case Number
HCA1061/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (consolidated Actions Concerning Knowing Receipt, Agency, Discovery and Strike Out) / Interlocutory Decision (strike Out and Discovery Applications)
Outcome
Strike-out application dismissed; discovery application granted in part
Legal Topics
Knowing Receipt, Constructive Trust, Apparent Authority, Actual Authority, Strike Out (o18 R19), Disclosure Limits, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
EN
Trusts Agency Civil Procedure Discovery Fraud Gaming Law Knowing Receipt Constructive Trust +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K & L Gates

Plaintiff

Navin Kumar Aggarwal

1st Defendant

Sat Ieng Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada

2nd Defendant

Golden Way Global Limited

3rd Defendant

Southbank Investments Pty Limited

4th Defendant

Sat Fat Limited (also known as Sat Fat Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada)

5th Defendant

Ever Discovery Limited

6th Defendant

Burswood Nominees Limited

7th Defendant

Golden Future (Management Services) Limited

8th Defendant

Venetian Macau Limited

9th Defendant

Wynn International Marketing Limited

10th Defendant

V-HK Services Limited

11th Defendant

Golden Way Company Limited (also known as Golden Way Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada)

12th Defendant

Crown Melbourne Limited

13th Defendant

Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A

14th Defendant

Melco Crown Gaming (Macau) Limited

Defendant (hca 349/2012)

Procedural Posture

Civil (consolidated Actions Concerning Knowing Receipt, Agency, Discovery and Strike Out) / Interlocutory Decision (strike Out and Discovery Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant received the 28 payments
  2. 2 Whether Sat Ieng Sociedade Unipessoal Limitada acted as agent (actual or apparent) for the 2nd defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim is frivolous or bound to fail and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The strike-out application was dismissed because, on the materials, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's case must fail; the plaintiff's factual matrix (connections, draft agreements, public announcement and banking records showing payments to SIC) could, with cross-examination and inference, support a trial on agency and knowing receipt. Discovery was ordered in part: D2 must disclose filings/submissions to the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) for 1 March 2005 to 11 December 2010 (with wording narrowed), but broad bank-document and other classes were refused as fishing. Costs orders were made nisi with allocation specified.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application dismissed; discovery application granted in part

Orders

  • Strike-out application by 2nd defendant dismissed
  • Discovery ordered limited to revised Class B: submissions/applications/filings by D2 to the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) for the period 1 March 2005 to 11 December 2010 (phraseology narrowed as ordered)