JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Both summonses were dismissed because SAIF GP had locus as general partner/beneficiary, there was no material non-disclosure affecting the leave decision, the O 52 r 2 material disclosed a distinctly arguable prima facie case of contempt, and it was just to dispense with personal service and endorsement of a penal notice on the facts given Zhou's participation in proceedings and awareness of the order and consequences; substituted service was therefore valid and the leave and service orders stood.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2423
Parties
Plaintiff in HCCL 16/2016; Defendant in HCMP 208/2020: Joe Zhixiong Zhou; 1st Defendant in HCCL 16/2016; 1st Plaintiff in HCMP 208/2020: SAIF Partners II L.P.; 2nd Defendant in HCCL 16/2016; 2nd Plaintiff in HCMP 208/2020: SAIF II GP Capital Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Case Number
HCCL16/2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (accounting and Enforcement) and Application for Committal for Contempt / Chambers Decision on Summonses to Set Aside Leave to Commence Committal and to Set Aside Dispensing/substituted Service Orders (final Disposition)
Outcome
Both the HCCL 16/2016 summons and HCMP 208/2020 summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings, O 52 R 2 Statement Requirements, Dispensation of Personal Service and Penal Notice (o 45 R 7), Material Non Disclosure in Leave Applications, Jurisdiction and Service Out of Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Partnership Law Service of Process Enforcement of Judgments Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings O 52 R 2 Statement Requirements Dispensation of Personal Service and Penal Notice (o 45 R 7) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe Zhixiong Zhou

Plaintiff in HCCL 16/2016; Defendant in HCMP 208/2020

SAIF Partners II L.P.

1st Defendant in HCCL 16/2016; 1st Plaintiff in HCMP 208/2020

SAIF II GP Capital Limited

2nd Defendant in HCCL 16/2016; 2nd Plaintiff in HCMP 208/2020

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (accounting and Enforcement) and Application for Committal for Contempt / Chambers Decision on Summonses to Set Aside Leave to Commence Committal and to Set Aside Dispensing/substituted Service Orders (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SAIF II GP has locus to apply for committal
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure to the leave judge
  3. 3 Whether the O 52 r 2 statement made out a prima facie case of contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Both summonses were dismissed because SAIF GP had locus as general partner/beneficiary, there was no material non-disclosure affecting the leave decision, the O 52 r 2 material disclosed a distinctly arguable prima facie case of contempt, and it was just to dispense with personal service and endorsement of a penal notice on the facts given Zhou's participation in proceedings and awareness of the order and consequences; substituted service was therefore valid and the leave and service orders stood.

Court Disposition

Both the HCCL 16/2016 summons and HCMP 208/2020 summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Summons filed 7 May 2020 in HCCL 16/2016 dismissed
  • Summons filed 22 June 2020 in HCMP 208/2020 dismissed