HWANG JOON SANG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC. AND OTHERS

HWANG JOON SANG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC. AND OTHERS

Although there was compelling evidence tending to show that the 6th defendant made materially false statements in earlier affirmations and those statements were material to the Discharge Summons, the court exercised its discretion and held that, on balance, it was not in the public interest nor proportionate to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3296
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HWANG JOON SANG; 2nd Plaintiff: FUTURE CELL PLUS CO., LTD; 1st Defendant: GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC.; 2nd Defendant: WORLDBEST GLOBAL SUPPLIER INC.; 3rd Defendant: HARMONY ELECTRONICS INC.; 4th Defendant: QUANTUM ELECTRONICS INC.; 5th Defendant: JIN MIAO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 6th Defendant: VIVIEN CHUNG YING-YIN; 7th Defendant: MAGIC ELECTRONICS INC.; 8th Defendant (discontinued): B.C CENTURY TECHOLOGY LIMITED; 9th Defendant: CHEN NIEN FANG; 10th Defendant: CHEN YI KUEI; 11th Defendant: CHINA DYNAMIC LIMITED; 12th Defendant: CHIU WEI FEN; 13th Defendant: CHOU LIN CHIAO; 14th Defendant: GLORY DYNAMIC LIMITED; 15th Defendant: HSU WEI LUN; 16th Defendant: HU HONG BIN; 17th Defendant: IMPERIAL DRAGON LIMITED; 18th Defendant: LIN CHIH CHENG; 19th Defendant: LIU MEI TING; 20th Defendant: MAGIC CRYSTAL LIMITED; 21st Defendant: NIU HSIU CHEN; 22nd Defendant: SU CHAO MING; 23rd Defendant: SU KUANG HONG; 24th Defendant: SU PEI I; 25th Defendant: TSAI PAO TSAI; 26th Defendant: WANG CHAO CHENG; 27th Defendant: WANG HUI MIN; 28th Defendant: CHOU PEI FEN; 29th Defendant: LEE CHENG HSIEN; 30th Defendant: ARK MEDICAL CO., LIMITED; 31st Defendant: CREATIVE CONCEPT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIMITED; 32nd Defendant: MINGYI INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
HCA1529/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil: Application for Leave to Apply for Committal (contempt) / Interlocutory Decision (ex Parte Leave Application)
Outcome
Ex parte application for leave to apply for an order of committal for contempt refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Apply for Committal, False Statements in Affidavits/affirmations, Order 41 a Rule 9, Order 52 Rule 2, Public Interest Test, Recantation and Effect on Proceedings
Source Language
en
Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Evidence Criminal (perjury) Leave to Apply for Committal False Statements in Affidavits/affirmations Order 41 a Rule 9 Order 52 Rule 2 +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HWANG JOON SANG

1st Plaintiff

FUTURE CELL PLUS CO., LTD

2nd Plaintiff

GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC.

1st Defendant

WORLDBEST GLOBAL SUPPLIER INC.

2nd Defendant

HARMONY ELECTRONICS INC.

3rd Defendant

QUANTUM ELECTRONICS INC.

4th Defendant

JIN MIAO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

5th Defendant

VIVIEN CHUNG YING-YIN

6th Defendant

MAGIC ELECTRONICS INC.

7th Defendant

B.C CENTURY TECHOLOGY LIMITED

8th Defendant (discontinued)

CHEN NIEN FANG

9th Defendant

CHEN YI KUEI

10th Defendant

CHINA DYNAMIC LIMITED

11th Defendant

CHIU WEI FEN

12th Defendant

CHOU LIN CHIAO

13th Defendant

GLORY DYNAMIC LIMITED

14th Defendant

HSU WEI LUN

15th Defendant

HU HONG BIN

16th Defendant

IMPERIAL DRAGON LIMITED

17th Defendant

LIN CHIH CHENG

18th Defendant

LIU MEI TING

19th Defendant

MAGIC CRYSTAL LIMITED

20th Defendant

NIU HSIU CHEN

21st Defendant

SU CHAO MING

22nd Defendant

SU KUANG HONG

23rd Defendant

SU PEI I

24th Defendant

TSAI PAO TSAI

25th Defendant

WANG CHAO CHENG

26th Defendant

WANG HUI MIN

27th Defendant

CHOU PEI FEN

28th Defendant

LEE CHENG HSIEN

29th Defendant

ARK MEDICAL CO., LIMITED

30th Defendant

CREATIVE CONCEPT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIMITED

31st Defendant

MINGYI INVESTMENTS LIMITED

32nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Application for Leave to Apply for Committal (contempt) / Interlocutory Decision (ex Parte Leave Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in the 1st and 2nd affirmations were false and made knowingly or recklessly
  2. 2 Whether Order 41A r9 applies to affidavits/affirmations or should be applied by analogy
  3. 3 Whether leave to commence committal proceedings should be granted in the public interest and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was compelling evidence tending to show that the 6th defendant made materially false statements in earlier affirmations and those statements were material to the Discharge Summons, the court exercised its discretion and held that, on balance, it was not in the public interest nor proportionate to grant leave to commence committal proceedings given recantation, interlocutory context, resource and enforcement considerations and alternative remedies; accordingly leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Ex parte application for leave to apply for an order of committal for contempt refused

Orders

  • Decision to refuse leave to apply for committal
  • This Decision to be served on solicitors for Vivien