Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

RE CHAN CHIN YUEN

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The judge concluded that substituted service sufficiently informed Chan of the order, Chan wilfully disobeyed the order to attend the SFC interview and sought to evade service; therefore committal to prison (purgeable by attending the interview) is the appropriate remedy, a fine is inappropriate, and indemnity costs are ordered; a warrant for arrest and committal is to be signed and may be addressed to specified enforcement authorities.

Court disposition

Order for committal to prison for civil contempt (purgeable), warrant for arrest to be signed with expanded addressees, indemnity costs awarded to applicant, amendment of earlier motion allowed but substantive hearing deferred.

Orders

  • Respondent Chan Chin Yuen committed to prison for contempt for failing to attend the SFC interview on 2 October 2007 at 10 am contrary to the court's 6 September 2007 order; imprisonment purgeable by attending the interview as required
  • Warrant for arrest and committal to be signed and addressed to The Chief Bailiff and his assistants, the Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Commissioner of Police and each and every one of his officers in Hong Kong, and the Director of Immigration
  • Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis
  • Application to amend the Notice of Motion dated 14 June 2007 allowed but substantive consideration of that amended motion deferred due to lateness of the summons to amend

02

Material facts

Parties

Leung Ching Yee (investigator, Securities and Futures Commission)

Applicant Counsel: Adrian Bell

Chan Chin Yuen

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Committal for Civil Contempt Under Securities and Futures Ordinance (cap.571) / Hearing and Judgment on Application for Committal (motion Hearing)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The investigator applied for committal because Chan disobeyed the court's 6 September 2007 order to attend an SFC interview on 2 October 2007, evaded personal service, had substituted service effected, failed to attend and thereby wilfully contemned the court's order; committal to prison is appropriate and costs should be indemnity costs.
Respondent
No oral or written submissions were advanced by the respondent; respondent was absent and made no application or explanation and thus offered no defence to the contempt allegations.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law and civil contempt principles

    Court may order committal to prison for civil contempt where a party wilfully disobeys a court order

  2. 02

    Securities and Futures Ordinance Cap.571 s.183 and s.185

    An order under SFO s.185 may be used to compel attendance for an interview pursuant to SFO s.183

  3. 03

    Court procedural practice and Master Roy Yu's order in this matter

    Substituted service may be dispensed with personal service where personal service cannot be effected and the court directs alternative methods

  4. 04

    Common law civil contempt doctrine

    Committal for civil contempt is purgeable by the contemnor by compliance with the court order

  5. 05

    Equitable costs principles and judicial discretion

    Costs may be awarded on an indemnity basis where respondent's conduct is uncooperative and contumacious

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The judge concluded that substituted service sufficiently informed Chan of the order, Chan wilfully disobeyed the order to attend the SFC interview and sought to evade service; therefore committal to prison (purgeable by attending the interview) is the appropriate remedy, a fine is inappropriate, and indemnity costs are ordered; a warrant for arrest and committal is to be signed and may be addressed to specified enforcement authorities.

Obiter and limits

  • The court followed the precedent of Secretary for Justice v. Choy Bing Wing [2005] 4 HKC 416 in permitting amendment of the warrant form to address multiple enforcement authorities.
  • Not proceeding with the hearing would enable the respondent to flaunt legal obligations.
  • The earlier motion dated 14 June 2007 was permitted to be amended but substantive consideration was deferred because the application to amend was taken out late.

Court disposition

Order for committal to prison for civil contempt (purgeable), warrant for arrest to be signed with expanded addressees, indemnity costs awarded to applicant, amendment of earlier motion allowed but substantive hearing deferred.

  • Respondent Chan Chin Yuen committed to prison for contempt for failing to attend the SFC interview on 2 October 2007 at 10 am contrary to the court's 6 September 2007 order; imprisonment purgeable by attending the interview as required
  • Warrant for arrest and committal to be signed and addressed to The Chief Bailiff and his assistants, the Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Commissioner of Police and each and every one of his officers in Hong Kong, and the Director of Immigration
  • Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis
  • Application to amend the Notice of Motion dated 14 June 2007 allowed but substantive consideration of that amended motion deferred due to lateness of the summons to amend

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 31 October 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 31 October 2007

RE CHAN CHIN YUEN

bjbj HCMP 1155/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1155 OF 2007 ____ IN THE MATTER OF an application under Section 185(1) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, Cap. 571, Laws of Hong Kong and IN THE MATTER of CHAN CHIN YUEN and IN THE MATTER OF an application by Leung Ching Yee (in her capacity as an investigator directed by the Securities and Futures Commission under Section 182(1) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, Cap. 571) against Chan Chin Yuen for an order of Committal ____ Before: Hon Reyes J in Court Date of Hearing: 31 October 2007 Date of Judgment: 31 October 2007 ______

J U D G M E N T ______ I. INTRODUCTION This is an application to commit Mr Chan Chin Yuen to prison for contempt in disobeying my Order dated 6 September 2007. II. BACKGROUND The initial background to this case has been set out in my previous Judgment dated 6 September 2007. In that Judgment I found that Mr Chan had disobeyed a Notice dated 17 May 2007 issued under Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) (SFO) s.183 requiring Mr Chan to attend an interview at the SFC. The interview was to assist Ms Leung Ching Yee, an SFC investigator, in her investigation of possible acts of false trading, price rigging and stock market manipulation relating to the shares of Asia Standard Hotel Group Ltd. I exercised my power under SFO s.185 to make an Order compelling Mr Chan to attend an interview with Ms Leung at SFC s premises at 10 am on 2 October 2007. Attempts were made to serve Mr Chan personally with a copy of my Order at his residential and business addresses. These were unsuccessful. The attempts were followed up by letters from the SFC to Mr Chan which were inserted into the mail boxes at his residential and business addresses on 11 September 2007. The letters set out the contents of my Order and pointed out that Mr Chan was expected to attend an interview on 2 October 2007. The letters stated the consequences of breaching my Order. The letters also requested Mr Chan to

make an appointment with the SFC so that my Order could be served on him personally. Telephone messages were left for Mr Chan and his wife to the effect that Ms Leung was seeking to serve my Order on Mr Chan personally. There was no response from Mr Chan. On 17 September 2007, upon the SFC s application, Master Roy Yu directed that personal service of my Order be dispensed with. Master Yu ordered that instead service should be effected by the following means:- (1) sending a copy of my Order by post to Mr Chan at his residential address; (2) inserting a letter containing a copy of my Order in the mail boxes of Mr Chan s residential and business addresses; and (3) leaving a copy of my Order at Mr Chan s business address. Substituted service was effected on 18 September 2007 by all the means directed by Master Yu. On 19 September 2007, the appointment letter that had been inserted into the mail box of Mr Chan s business address the week before was returned to the SFC by the post office. The letter was endorsed No such person in Chinese. Mr Chan in fact left Hong Kong on 27 September 2007. He did not return until 7 October 2007. He did not attend the interview on 2 October. On 8 October 2007 Ms Leung applied for Mr Chan to be committed to prison for contempt in failing to comply with my Order of 6 September 2007. I granted leave to apply for committal on 9 October 2007. I directed

that service of all documents relating to the committal be by the methods set out in Master Yu s Order. On the basis that there was evidence that Mr Chan was seeking to evade service, I also directed that personal service of the committal papers be dispensed with. Substituted service of the committal documents (including copies of the Notice of Motion dated 12 October 2007 for today s hearing) was effected on 12 and 18 October 2007 by the means enumerated in Master Yu s Order. On 22 October 2007 an envelope which had been left at Mr Chan s business address was returned by the post office with the words No such person marked on it in Chinese. In response to inquiries by the SFC, staff at Mr Chan s business address acknowledged that Mr Chan was their boss but they did not know where he was. Mr Chan left Hong Kong on 27 October 2007. He has not yet returned. He has not appeared before me today. III. DISCUSSION The SFC has not had any direct communication with Mr Chan since its telephone conversation with him on 4 June 2007 mentioned in my previous Judgment (at 7). This is despite numerous attempts to contact Mr Chan both personally and by letters sent or left at his residential and business addresses. Mr Chan has simply failed to respond. But he appears to continue to live at his residential address and, at least, appears to be known at his business address. None of the letters

sent or left at his residential address have been returned. Letters sent to his business address have been returned marked No such person . However, persons at the business address say they in fact know Mr Chan. In my view, it is a reasonable inference from all the facts that Mr Chan is fully aware of what is going on. Far from cooperating with the SFC, he seeks instead to evade service and thereby avoid compliance with his obligation to attend an interview with Ms Leung under SFO s.183. Mr Chan must have known the purpose, venue and time of the 2 October interview as a result of the substituted service of the relevant papers (including a copy of my Order) on him. But he simply refused to turn up. Consequently, neither the lack of personal service of the committal papers nor Mr Chan s absence today is any good reason to adjourn these contempt proceedings. Not to proceed today would be to allow Mr Chan to flaunt his obligations under the law. Given Mr Chan s wilful obstinacy, I think that committal to prison is an appropriate remedy. I do not believe that a fine will be appropriate here. I am therefore prepared to sign a warrant for his arrest and committal. IV. CONCLUSION Mr Chan is to be committed to prison for his contempt in failing to attend an interview with Ms Leung at the SFC s offices on 2 October 2007 at 10 am contrary to my Order dated 6 September 2007. This being a

matter of civil contempt, the duration of Mr Chan s imprisonment is obviously in his hands. It is open to him to purge his contempt and end his confinement by attending an interview with the SFC s investigator. I think that, in light of Mr Chan s uncooperative attitude, it is appropriate to make an Order that Mr Chan pay the costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis. Mr Bell (appearing for Ms Leung) has asked that the warrant for committal be addressed to The Chief Bailiff and his assistants, the Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Commissioner of Police and each and every one of his officers in Hong Kong, and the Director of Immigration . This suggestion follows the precedent of Secretary for Justice v. Choy Bing Wing [2005] 4 HKC 416. There a similar amendment to the usual form was made to assist in the execution of the warrant. I think that it is right for a like amendment to be made here. Finally, Mr Bell applied for Ms Leung s earlier Notice of Motion dated 14 June 2007 to be amended. That amendment seeks an Order that Mr Chan also be punished for contempt in failing to attend an interview before Ms Leung on 29 May 2007. I allowed the amendment sought. But in light of the lateness of the Summons to amend the 14 June 2007 Motion (such Summons having only been taken out on 26 October 2007), I did not think that it was right to proceed today with the substantive consideration of the June 2007 Motion as amended. (A. T. Reyes) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Adrian Bell, instructed by Securities and Futures Commission, Applicant in person Respondent in person - absent

PAGE - 1udk 1udk

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V i$&p i8?T hccw (for Susan Kwan only).dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Secretary for Justice v. Choy Bing Wing [2005] 4 HKC 416

Case cited

Securities and Futures Ordinance Cap. 571 s.183

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Securities and Futures Ordinance Cap. 571 s.185

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.