THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

The court held the liquidators had not established legal professional privilege over the transcripts (no legal advice privilege; no factual basis for litigation privilege), and that disclosure of the applicants' own transcripts in these proceedings is not inconsistent with the purposes of s.221 and r.62. Exercising its discretion in the exceptional circumstances (complexity, age of events, number of issues), the court permitted limited disclosure to the applicants, their legal advisers and specified identified persons and related group defendants, subject to a solicitor's letter undertaking that the transcripts be used only for the Grande Proceedings and with leave to apply to vary that...

Citation
THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent (liquidators): The Joint & Several Liquidators of Kong Wah Holdings Limited (in Liquidation); Respondent (liquidators): The Joint & Several Liquidators of Akai Holdings Limited (in Liquidation); Applicant (summons Maker; 5th Respondent in Underlying Proceedings): Ho Wing On, Christopher; Applicant (summons Maker; 6th Respondent in Underlying Proceedings): Ruby Lee Yen Kee; Respondent (1st Defendant in Underlying Proceedings): The Grande Holdings Limited; Respondent (2nd Defendant in Underlying Proceedings): The Grande Group Limited; Respondent (3rd Defendant in Underlying Proceedings): The Grande (Nominees) Limited; Respondent (4th Defendant in Underlying Proceedings): Omnicorp Limited; Respondent (7th Defendant in Underlying Proceedings): Sheryl Simmons
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Case Number
HCCW50/2000
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Applications Under Section 221 Companies Ordinance and Rule 62 of the Companies (winding Up) Rules / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing on Summons for Disclosure of Private Examination Transcripts (heard and Decided 23 October 2008)
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Section 221 Companies Ordinance, Companies (winding Up) Rules R.62, Private Examinations and Transcripts, Legal Professional Privilege (advice and Litigation), Disclosure and Court Discretion, Undertakings as to Use of Disclosed Material
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Professional Privilege Section 221 Companies Ordinance Companies (winding Up) Rules R.62 Private Examinations and Transcripts Legal Professional Privilege (advice and Litigation) +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Joint & Several Liquidators of Kong Wah Holdings Limited (in Liquidation)

Respondent (liquidators)

The Joint & Several Liquidators of Akai Holdings Limited (in Liquidation)

Respondent (liquidators)

Ho Wing On, Christopher

Applicant (summons Maker; 5th Respondent in Underlying Proceedings)

Ruby Lee Yen Kee

Applicant (summons Maker; 6th Respondent in Underlying Proceedings)

The Grande Holdings Limited

Respondent (1st Defendant in Underlying Proceedings)

The Grande Group Limited

Respondent (2nd Defendant in Underlying Proceedings)

The Grande (Nominees) Limited

Respondent (3rd Defendant in Underlying Proceedings)

Omnicorp Limited

Respondent (4th Defendant in Underlying Proceedings)

Sheryl Simmons

Respondent (7th Defendant in Underlying Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Applications Under Section 221 Companies Ordinance and Rule 62 of the Companies (winding Up) Rules / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing on Summons for Disclosure of Private Examination Transcripts (heard and Decided 23 October 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transcripts of private examinations under s.221 are subject to legal professional privilege
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of such transcripts is consistent with the statutory purposes of s.221 and rule 62
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit disclosure to co-defendants and their advisers before pleadings and discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the liquidators had not established legal professional privilege over the transcripts (no legal advice privilege; no factual basis for litigation privilege), and that disclosure of the applicants' own transcripts in these proceedings is not inconsistent with the purposes of s.221 and r.62. Exercising its discretion in the exceptional circumstances (complexity, age of events, number of issues), the court permitted limited disclosure to the applicants, their legal advisers and specified identified persons and related group defendants, subject to a solicitor's letter undertaking that the transcripts be used only for the Grande Proceedings and with leave to apply to vary that...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Applicants (Ho and Lee) permitted to provide each other with copies of their own private examination transcripts
  • Applicants permitted to provide copies of their transcripts to their legal advisers and any persons assisting those advisers (Other Advisers)