WANG PENGYING (王鵬英) (suing on behalf of herself and all other shareholders in Convoy Global Holdings Limited and Convoy Finance Limited) v. NG WING FAI AND OTHERS

WANG PENGYING (王鵬英) (suing on behalf of herself and all other shareholders in Convoy Global Holdings Limited and Convoy Finance Limited) v. NG WING FAI AND OTHERS

The interrogatories were ordered withdrawn because they were not necessary for the fair disposal of the strike-out/standing application, amounted to a backdoor attempt at cross-examination and risked reversing the burden of proof, and because they sought information primarily within the knowledge of third-party directors who cannot be compelled or procured by the defendants to answer, making the interrogatories likely futile and oppressive.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2430
Parties
1st Defendant: NG WING FAI; 2nd Defendant: YAP E HOCK; 3rd Defendant: CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 4th Defendant: CONVOY FINANCE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Case Number
HCA1619/2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law Derivative Action / Interlocutory (application to Withdraw Interrogatories; Strike Out Application Pending)
Outcome
Interrogatories withdrawn; costs awarded to 1st and 2nd defendants
Legal Topics
Standing, Wrongdoer in Control, Strike Out, Interrogatories, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Shareholder Derivative Action Evidence and Disclosure Standing Wrongdoer in Control Strike Out Interrogatories +1 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG WING FAI

1st Defendant

YAP E HOCK

2nd Defendant

CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

CONVOY FINANCE LIMITED

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Common Law Derivative Action / Interlocutory (application to Withdraw Interrogatories; Strike Out Application Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories served before defence/discovery are premature
  2. 2 Whether the interrogatories are necessary for fair disposal of the strike-out application
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories impermissibly reverse the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories were ordered withdrawn because they were not necessary for the fair disposal of the strike-out/standing application, amounted to a backdoor attempt at cross-examination and risked reversing the burden of proof, and because they sought information primarily within the knowledge of third-party directors who cannot be compelled or procured by the defendants to answer, making the interrogatories likely futile and oppressive.

Court Disposition

Interrogatories withdrawn; costs awarded to 1st and 2nd defendants

Orders

  • Interrogatories served by the plaintiff on 22 May 2019 are ordered withdrawn
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of this application to the 1st and 2nd defendants, without certificate for two counsel; costs to be summarily assessed on paper