ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Material non-disclosure was established in respect of the overbroad inclusion of numerous 'Group Companies' and the expansive provision regarding cash takings the 1st defendant did not control; because those undisclosed matters materially affected the weighing exercise and produced an order that extended beyond what...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: STEP BY STEP LIMITED; Plaintiff: NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED; Plaintiff: STEP UP LIMITED; 1st Defendant: DOROTHY JANE FURNESS; 2nd Defendant: RAPHAEL HOMER ECHALUCE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Case Number
HCMP838/2007
Procedural Posture
Company/commercial Anton Piller (search) and Discovery Dispute / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Anton Piller Order and Inspection Summons (applications Heard Together)
Outcome
Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection summons dismissed; liberty to apply
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Material Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Scope and Proportionality of Search Orders, Discovery and Inspection of Seized Electronic Documents, Solicitor's Duty in Discovery, Surveillance and Oppression, Discharge Vs Continuation of Ex Parte Orders
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions and Search Orders Evidence and Disclosure Professional Conduct of Solicitors Privacy/surveillance Anton Piller Order Material Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEP BY STEP LIMITED

Plaintiff

NEW SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Plaintiff

STEP UP LIMITED

Plaintiff

DOROTHY JANE FURNESS

1st Defendant

RAPHAEL HOMER ECHALUCE

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company/commercial Anton Piller (search) and Discovery Dispute / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Anton Piller Order and Inspection Summons (applications Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Anton Piller order should be continued despite allegations of material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' ex parte affidavits failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts relevant to the granting and scope of the Anton Piller order
  3. 3 Whether the scope of the Anton Piller order (definition of Group Companies and cash takings) was excessively wide and unjustified

Ratio Decidendi

Material non-disclosure was established in respect of the overbroad inclusion of numerous 'Group Companies' and the expansive provision regarding cash takings the 1st defendant did not control; because those undisclosed matters materially affected the weighing exercise and produced an order that extended beyond what was necessary, the court exercised its discretion to discharge the Anton Piller order and dismiss the inspection summons, directing that discovery proceed by ordinary means and leaving to defendants' solicitors the duty to review and make appropriate supplemental disclosure.

Court Disposition

Anton Piller order discharged; Inspection summons dismissed; liberty to apply

Orders

  • Order nisi: costs of both applications to 1st and 2nd defendants in any event with a certificate for two counsel