TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS
The court held that the plaintiffs had deployed the contents of the settlement agreement (including producing a copy at the ex parte stage and relying on its terms in affidavits), thereby waiving privilege to the extent necessary; the settlement agreement is relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the action (trial) and must be produced at the time for inspection after exchange of lists of documents; however, because the application was made late, production was not ordered for the immediate Mareva injunction hearing. Mr Lau must be given an opportunity to make representations and appropriate confidentiality conditions may be imposed.
- Citation
- TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Taihan Electric Wire Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Taihan Global Holdings Limited; 1st Defendant: Lau Siu Ming; Defendant: Lee Chi Yuen; 3rd Defendant: Yuanzhi; 4th Defendant: Winful
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 8 October 2013
- Case Number
- HCA454/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application for Production of Documents and Mareva Injunction / Application Under Order 24 for Production; Hearing of Mareva Injunction Pending
- Outcome
- Order nisi that plaintiffs produce the settlement agreement at the document inspection stage (not for the Mareva injunction hearing); Mr Lau to be given opportunity to make representations; confidentiality terms to be agreed or imposed; costs orders reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Waiver of Privilege, Mareva Injunction, Settlement Agreement Disclosure, Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Taihan Electric Wire Company Limited
1st Plaintiff
Taihan Global Holdings Limited
2nd Plaintiff
Lau Siu Ming
1st Defendant
Lee Chi Yuen
Defendant
Yuanzhi
3rd Defendant
Winful
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Production of Documents and Mareva Injunction / Application Under Order 24 for Production; Hearing of Mareva Injunction Pending
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the settlement agreement must be produced for inspection
- 2 Whether privilege was waived by deployment of the settlement agreement in affidavits
- 3 Whether production is necessary for the fair disposal of the Mareva injunction hearing or the action at trial
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiffs had deployed the contents of the settlement agreement (including producing a copy at the ex parte stage and relying on its terms in affidavits), thereby waiving privilege to the extent necessary; the settlement agreement is relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the action (trial) and must be produced at the time for inspection after exchange of lists of documents; however, because the application was made late, production was not ordered for the immediate Mareva injunction hearing. Mr Lau must be given an opportunity to make representations and appropriate confidentiality conditions may be imposed.
Court Disposition
Order nisi that plaintiffs produce the settlement agreement at the document inspection stage (not for the Mareva injunction hearing); Mr Lau to be given opportunity to make representations; confidentiality terms to be agreed or imposed; costs orders reserved.
Orders
- Settlement agreement to be produced only after exchange of lists of documents and at the time for inspection
- Before inspection Mr Lau to be given opportunity to make representations for or against production and on terms of disclosure
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment