K&L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD

K&L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD

The court ordered extensive discovery in defined categories because the requested bank mandates, unredacted or appropriately anonymised bank statements, client ledgers, seizure lists, police witness statements, escrow agreements (limited to those in issue) and internal correspondence are relevant and necessary to perform a fund flow analysis, determine title to funds and assess knowledge of partners; redactions and privilege claims were insufficiently particularised or inconsistent and therefore not upheld except for permitted anonymisation of unrelated client names; some requests were refused where documents did not exist or were adequately dealt with.

Citation
K&L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD
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; 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; 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
27 November 2017
Case Number
HCA349/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Consolidated for Discovery Applications Arising From Alleged Misappropriation and Claims Against Casino Defendants / Interlocutory Discovery Hearing and Decision (application for Specific Discovery)
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part: ordered targeted production with specified limits and redaction rules; certain categories not ordered where documents do not exist or have been adequately sworn to; costs ordered nisi against K&L Gates.
Legal Topics
Scope of Specific Discovery, Legal Professional Privilege and Redaction, Fund Tracing and Knowing Receipt, Title to Funds/escrow Arrangements, Proportionality and CJR Objectives
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Unjust Enrichment Professional Negligence Anti Money Laundering Scope of Specific Discovery Legal Professional Privilege and Redaction +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

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

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 Action Consolidated for Discovery Applications Arising From Alleged Misappropriation and Claims Against Casino Defendants / Interlocutory Discovery Hearing and Decision (application for Specific Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank mandates and payment instructions were properly authorized
  2. 2 Whether funds transferred to casinos originated from non-clients and are traceable (fund flow analysis)
  3. 3 Whether partners or staff of K&L Gates had actual or constructive knowledge of the fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered extensive discovery in defined categories because the requested bank mandates, unredacted or appropriately anonymised bank statements, client ledgers, seizure lists, police witness statements, escrow agreements (limited to those in issue) and internal correspondence are relevant and necessary to perform a fund flow analysis, determine title to funds and assess knowledge of partners; redactions and privilege claims were insufficiently particularised or inconsistent and therefore not upheld except for permitted anonymisation of unrelated client names; some requests were refused where documents did not exist or were adequately dealt with.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part: ordered targeted production with specified limits and redaction rules; certain categories not ordered where documents do not exist or have been adequately sworn to; costs ordered nisi against K&L Gates.

Orders

  • Produce account opening documents and mandates for the Client Account (M1-2, V4, W1-3)
  • Produce bank statements, reconciliation statements and clients' ledgers for the period May 2007 to June 2011 necessary for fund flow analysis, with client names anonymised by client numbers (C(i), M3-4, V6&8, W4-5)