HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

Specific discovery was ordered in part: documents under Reference Number 404 relating to RIM limited to the period March 2010–June 2011 (Classes A.1–A.5) were relevant and necessary and must be disclosed; discovery of broad accounting vouchers/transactions to/from all entities in Annexures A and B (Class B), partnership deed/minutes (Class C), police/CCB statements (Class D) and earlier accountant's reports 2007–2009 (Class E) were refused as irrelevant, overbroad or unnecessary; redactions to the 2010–2011 accountant's reports were upheld because Hind failed to discharge heavy burden to rebut the veracity of KLG's affidavit justification for redaction; consequential orders require KLG to...

Citation
HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Hind International Investment Limited; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): K & L Gates (a firm of solicitors); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim); Shareholder/director of Hind: Manoj Kumar Jhunjhnuwala; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim); Member of Hind Family: Shalini Jhunjhnuwala; 4th Defendant (counterclaim); Member of Hind Family: Anil Kumar Jhunjhnuwala
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Case Number
HCA1325/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings With Interlocutory Discovery Applications / Chambers Hearing and Judgment on Specific Discovery Summonses (interlocutory Stage)
Outcome
Applications partly allowed and partly dismissed: 1st SD summons granted in part (limited Classes A.1–A.5 for RIM within the Period); 2nd SD summons dismissed; Unless Order summons dismissed; leave to file Chan affidavit granted; directions for KLG to file affidavit and supplemental list and permit inspection.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Legal Professional Privilege, Fraud Exception to Privilege, Ostensible/actual Authority, Implied Trust, Negligence of Solicitors, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Accountant's Reports
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Solicitors' Professional Regulation Trusts and Restitution Contract Law Fraud Specific Discovery Legal Professional Privilege Fraud Exception to Privilege +5 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hind International Investment Limited

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

K & L Gates (a firm of solicitors)

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Manoj Kumar Jhunjhnuwala

2nd Defendant (counterclaim); Shareholder/director of Hind

Shalini Jhunjhnuwala

3rd Defendant (counterclaim); Member of Hind Family

Anil Kumar Jhunjhnuwala

4th Defendant (counterclaim); Member of Hind Family

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings With Interlocutory Discovery Applications / Chambers Hearing and Judgment on Specific Discovery Summonses (interlocutory Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified classes of documents were in KLG's possession, custody or power
  2. 2 Whether those documents related to matters in question and were necessary for fair disposal
  3. 3 Whether redactions to accountant's reports were justified (privilege/irrelevance)

Ratio Decidendi

Specific discovery was ordered in part: documents under Reference Number 404 relating to RIM limited to the period March 2010–June 2011 (Classes A.1–A.5) were relevant and necessary and must be disclosed; discovery of broad accounting vouchers/transactions to/from all entities in Annexures A and B (Class B), partnership deed/minutes (Class C), police/CCB statements (Class D) and earlier accountant's reports 2007–2009 (Class E) were refused as irrelevant, overbroad or unnecessary; redactions to the 2010–2011 accountant's reports were upheld because Hind failed to discharge heavy burden to rebut the veracity of KLG's affidavit justification for redaction; consequential orders require KLG to...

Court Disposition

Applications partly allowed and partly dismissed: 1st SD summons granted in part (limited Classes A.1–A.5 for RIM within the Period); 2nd SD summons dismissed; Unless Order summons dismissed; leave to file Chan affidavit granted; directions for KLG to file affidavit and supplemental list and permit inspection.

Orders

  • Leave granted to KLG to file Chan's affidavit sworn 7 April 2014
  • Leave granted to Hind Parties to issue their summonses dated 15 November 2013 and 25 February 2014 (subject to limits)