HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER

HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER

The application was allowed because the pleadings established a partnership and the Plaintiff's responsibility for the US business, there was no preliminary question to be tried, the Plaintiff's prior account was inadequate and the 1st Defendant was entitled in the exercise of the court's discretion to a verified true and proper account of the US subsidiaries; reference to HKSA practice was unnecessary.

Citation
HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 August 2007
Case Number
HCA485/2006
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute Account and Injunction / Interlocutory (discovery) Application for Order of Account Under Order 43 Rule 1 RHC
Outcome
Application by 1st Defendant under Order 43 rule 1 RHC allowed
Legal Topics
Order 43 Rule 1 RHC, Account of Partnership, Interlocutory Relief, Discovery, Costs
Source Language
EN
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Equitable Accounting Injunctions Order 43 Rule 1 RHC Account of Partnership Interlocutory Relief Discovery +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute Account and Injunction / Interlocutory (discovery) Application for Order of Account Under Order 43 Rule 1 RHC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is under a duty to account for the US part of the partnership business
  2. 2 Whether there is any preliminary question to be tried that would preclude ordering an account
  3. 3 Whether existing accounts provided by the Plaintiff are adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The application was allowed because the pleadings established a partnership and the Plaintiff's responsibility for the US business, there was no preliminary question to be tried, the Plaintiff's prior account was inadequate and the 1st Defendant was entitled in the exercise of the court's discretion to a verified true and proper account of the US subsidiaries; reference to HKSA practice was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application by 1st Defendant under Order 43 rule 1 RHC allowed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff shall, within 42 days of the date of this Order, provide a true and proper account of that part of the partnership business conducted in the U.S.A. through United Pacific (USA) Inc. and Pacific American Products Inc., verified by an affirmation/affidavit by the Plaintiff.
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiff shall pay the 1st Defendant the costs of the application relating to Order 43 rule 1 RHC, including all costs reserved and Certificate of Counsel for the hearing on 13 July 2007, to be taxed if not agreed.