SUM MUN KID FREDERICK v. AUTO ITALIA LTD AND OTHERS

SUM MUN KID FREDERICK v. AUTO ITALIA LTD AND OTHERS

Because existing disclosure orders failed to locate the uniquely valuable LaFerrari, available evidence indicates deliberate concealment and frustration of court orders, and urgency to preserve the property remains, the court was justified in granting a further disclosure order pursuant to the summons dated 10 October 2017 (with amendments).

Citation
SUM MUN KID FREDERICK v. AUTO ITALIA LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: SUM Mun Kid Frederick; 1st Defendant: Auto Italia Limited; 2nd Defendant: TSANG Ling Kay Rodney; 3rd Defendant: Fringe Global Investments Limited; 4th Defendant: Ever Bless Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Case Number
HCA60/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Disclosure and Asset Tracing Concerning Recovery of Property (la Ferrari) / Decision on Summons for Further Disclosure (reasons Dated 13 October 2017)
Outcome
Further disclosure order granted pursuant to the Summons dated 10 October 2017 (with amendments).
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Asset Tracing, Enforcement of Court Orders, Urgency in Preservation of Property
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Asset Recovery Disclosure Orders Asset Tracing Enforcement of Court Orders Urgency in Preservation of Property

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUM Mun Kid Frederick

Plaintiff

Auto Italia Limited

1st Defendant

TSANG Ling Kay Rodney

2nd Defendant

Fringe Global Investments Limited

3rd Defendant

Ever Bless Investments Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Disclosure and Asset Tracing Concerning Recovery of Property (la Ferrari) / Decision on Summons for Further Disclosure (reasons Dated 13 October 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further disclosure order is justified to locate the LaFerrari
  2. 2 Whether existing disclosure orders have been frustrated by deliberate concealment
  3. 3 Whether urgency exists to justify further orders to locate and preserve the unique high-value property

Ratio Decidendi

Because existing disclosure orders failed to locate the uniquely valuable LaFerrari, available evidence indicates deliberate concealment and frustration of court orders, and urgency to preserve the property remains, the court was justified in granting a further disclosure order pursuant to the summons dated 10 October 2017 (with amendments).

Court Disposition

Further disclosure order granted pursuant to the Summons dated 10 October 2017 (with amendments).

Orders

  • Order made pursuant to the Summons dated 10 October 2017 as amended: further disclosure to elicit whereabouts of the LaFerrari.