趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

The Court refused the Order 29 preservation application because the Defendants did not have possession of the originals (they were affirmed to have been handed to PRC police) and because the Plaintiffs’ objective could be achieved by Order 24; accordingly the exercise of discretion to make an Order 29 preservation order was declined and the Court ordered disclosure of copies of six Disputed Documents and adjourned the Order 24 application with directions for pleadings/affirmations.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 118
Parties
1st Plaintiff: 趙春雨; 2nd Plaintiff: 廣州澳辰投資有限公司; 1st Defendant: 裘麗虹; 2nd Defendant: 胡大為; 3rd Defendant: 香港金城置業(集團)有限公司; 4th Defendant: 香港金華實業(集團)有限公司; 5th Defendant: 睿德國際有限公司; 6th Defendant: 譚偉航
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2018
Case Number
HCA3071/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interlocutory Preservation and Inspection Applications (order 29 RHC and Order 24 Rhc)
Outcome
1st Plaintiff's summons under Order 29, rule 2 dismissed; Defendants ordered to provide copies of six Disputed Documents within 7 days; Plaintiffs' application under Order 24 adjourned with directions for affirmations; no order as to costs for the Order 29 summons; costs of the Order 24 summons reserved.
Legal Topics
Preservation Order, Discovery and Inspection, Forensic Handwriting Examination, Share Transfer Dispute, Alleged Forgery
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Evidence Preservation Order Discovery and Inspection Forensic Handwriting Examination Share Transfer Dispute Alleged Forgery

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

趙春雨

1st Plaintiff

廣州澳辰投資有限公司

2nd Plaintiff

裘麗虹

1st Defendant

胡大為

2nd Defendant

香港金城置業(集團)有限公司

3rd Defendant

香港金華實業(集團)有限公司

4th Defendant

睿德國際有限公司

5th Defendant

譚偉航

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interlocutory Preservation and Inspection Applications (order 29 RHC and Order 24 Rhc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disputed Documents constitute 'property' under Order 29, rule 2
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant a preservation order under Order 29, rule 2
  3. 3 Whether documents are in the possession, custody or power of the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the Order 29 preservation application because the Defendants did not have possession of the originals (they were affirmed to have been handed to PRC police) and because the Plaintiffs’ objective could be achieved by Order 24; accordingly the exercise of discretion to make an Order 29 preservation order was declined and the Court ordered disclosure of copies of six Disputed Documents and adjourned the Order 24 application with directions for pleadings/affirmations.

Court Disposition

1st Plaintiff's summons under Order 29, rule 2 dismissed; Defendants ordered to provide copies of six Disputed Documents within 7 days; Plaintiffs' application under Order 24 adjourned with directions for affirmations; no order as to costs for the Order 29 summons; costs of the Order 24 summons reserved.

Orders

  • 1st Plaintiff's summons under Order 29, rule 2 dismissed
  • Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with copies of the six Disputed Documents (paragraphs 2(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (g)) within 7 days