WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Leave to re‑amend was granted despite delay because (a) the central substantive complaint of misrepresentation and material nondisclosure had from the outset been central to the applicants' case and the proposed amendment did not introduce new grounds but extended the same argument to decisions of the Secretary for Justice and police; (b) arguable grounds existed that warranted judicial consideration; (c) delay did not cause substantial hardship or prejudice to respondents given the circumstances and the fundamental rights at stake; interim relief and sealing orders were necessary to preserve evidence and LPP pending determination.

Citation
WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY; 2nd Applicant (hcal16) / 1st Applicant (hcal19) / 2nd Applicant (hcal18): HARMONY GOLD LIMITED; Applicant (hcal17): WILTSHIRE TRADING LIMITED; 1st Applicant (hcal18): HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE; 2nd Applicant (hcal19): CS SECRETARIES LIMITED; 3rd Applicant (hcal19): LONG PO MANAGMENT LIMITED; 4th Applicant (hcal19): CHNA MEI YIU, PADDY LIMITED; 1st Respondent: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE; 2nd Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; 3rd Respondent: LEUNG KING HUNG, DETECTIVE SENIOR INSPECTOR; 4th Respondent: A MAGISTRATE SITTING AT EASTERN MAGISTRACY ON 16 JANUARY 2007
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2007
Case Number
HCAL17/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application to Re Amend Pleadings and Application for Interim Relief; Decision on Leave to Amend and Interim Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to re‑amend granted; interim relief granted; orders for sealing and protection of seized/obtained materials made; leave reserved to apply on preservation issues; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Material Nondisclosure, Search Warrants, Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Proceedings, Delay and Promptness, Interim Injunction, Preservation of Evidence, Legal Professional Privilege
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Mutual Legal Assistance Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Material Nondisclosure +6 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY

1st Applicant

HARMONY GOLD LIMITED

2nd Applicant (hcal16) / 1st Applicant (hcal19) / 2nd Applicant (hcal18)

WILTSHIRE TRADING LIMITED

Applicant (hcal17)

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE

1st Applicant (hcal18)

CS SECRETARIES LIMITED

2nd Applicant (hcal19)

LONG PO MANAGMENT LIMITED

3rd Applicant (hcal19)

CHNA MEI YIU, PADDY LIMITED

4th Applicant (hcal19)

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

1st Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

2nd Respondent

LEUNG KING HUNG, DETECTIVE SENIOR INSPECTOR

3rd Respondent

A MAGISTRATE SITTING AT EASTERN MAGISTRACY ON 16 JANUARY 2007

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application to Re Amend Pleadings and Application for Interim Relief; Decision on Leave to Amend and Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit amendment to widen scope of judicial review to include Secretary for Justice decision and police s12(2) application
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment is barred by undue delay or causes substantial prejudice to administration or respondents
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations and material nondisclosure in the Italian letter of request are arguable and could have affected the magistrate and the Secretary for Justice

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re‑amend was granted despite delay because (a) the central substantive complaint of misrepresentation and material nondisclosure had from the outset been central to the applicants' case and the proposed amendment did not introduce new grounds but extended the same argument to decisions of the Secretary for Justice and police; (b) arguable grounds existed that warranted judicial consideration; (c) delay did not cause substantial hardship or prejudice to respondents given the circumstances and the fundamental rights at stake; interim relief and sealing orders were necessary to preserve evidence and LPP pending determination.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to re‑amend granted; interim relief granted; orders for sealing and protection of seized/obtained materials made; leave reserved to apply on preservation issues; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Leave granted to re‑amend the judicial review applications to include challenge to the Secretary for Justice's decision to act on the Italian letter of request and the s12(2) application by police on 16 January 2007.
  • Interim relief granted in the terms sought by the Applicants restraining the Respondents from taking steps to use or give effect to the relevant request from the Government of the Italian Republic pending further order.