ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS

The court held that the Shearman defendants are entitled to specific discovery of the seven classes of documents relating to the Assignment because they are relevant and there is a prima facie case they exist and are within the 1st Plaintiff's possession or power; the Herbert Smith application for further discovery was dismissed subject to verification by affirmations of supplemental lists and continued assistance from a named adviser; and Herbert Smith was entitled to replenishment of security for costs in the sum of HK$1,300,000 to be paid within 28 days.

Citation
ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) (on behalf of itself and as assignee of Asia-Pac Infrastructure Finance Limited; Asia-Pac Group Investments Limited; & Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited); 2nd Plaintiff: ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: ASIA-PAC GROUP INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: GREATER BEIJING REGION EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED on behalf of itself and as assignee of Greater Beijing First Expressways Limited (in Liquidation); 1st Defendant: SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm); 2nd Defendant: SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP (a firm, formerly known as SHEARMAN & STERLING); 3rd Defendant: ANTONIA E. STOLPER; 4th Defendant: DOUGLAS P. BARTNER; 5th Defendant: ANDREW V. TENZER; 6th Defendant: HSIAO-CHIUNG LI; 7th Defendant: MATTHEW D. BERSANI; 8th Defendant: EDWARD L. TURNER III; 9th Defendant: HERBERT SMITH (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Case Number
HCA806/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (discovery and Security for Costs) / Chambers Decision on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made: specific discovery ordered for Shearman defendants; Herbert Smith's specific discovery dismissed subject to affirmative verifications; security for costs replenished in part.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Strike Out/preliminary Issue, Authority to Sue, Assignments and Standing, Proportionality in Discovery, Verification by Affirmation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Insolvency Discovery Costs Security for Costs Law of Assignment Specific Discovery Strike Out/preliminary Issue +4 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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) (on behalf of itself and as assignee of Asia-Pac Infrastructure Finance Limited; Asia-Pac Group Investments Limited; & Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited)

1st Plaintiff

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

ASIA-PAC GROUP INVESTMENTS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

GREATER BEIJING REGION EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED on behalf of itself and as assignee of Greater Beijing First Expressways Limited (in Liquidation)

4th Plaintiff

SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm)

1st Defendant

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP (a firm, formerly known as SHEARMAN & STERLING)

2nd Defendant

ANTONIA E. STOLPER

3rd Defendant

DOUGLAS P. BARTNER

4th Defendant

ANDREW V. TENZER

5th Defendant

HSIAO-CHIUNG LI

6th Defendant

MATTHEW D. BERSANI

7th Defendant

EDWARD L. TURNER III

8th Defendant

HERBERT SMITH (a firm)

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (discovery and Security for Costs) / Chambers Decision on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery of documents relating to an assignment relied on by the 1st Plaintiff is relevant and within its possession custody or power
  2. 2 Whether challenges to a litigant's authority to sue must be determined by strike out or preliminary issue or may be raised in pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the liquidators have reasonably discharged discovery obligations and whether further specific discovery should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Shearman defendants are entitled to specific discovery of the seven classes of documents relating to the Assignment because they are relevant and there is a prima facie case they exist and are within the 1st Plaintiff's possession or power; the Herbert Smith application for further discovery was dismissed subject to verification by affirmations of supplemental lists and continued assistance from a named adviser; and Herbert Smith was entitled to replenishment of security for costs in the sum of HK$1,300,000 to be paid within 28 days.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made: specific discovery ordered for Shearman defendants; Herbert Smith's specific discovery dismissed subject to affirmative verifications; security for costs replenished in part.

Orders

  • Costs reserved / to be heard (Shearman defendants' application)