TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate that, more than seven years after the latest relevant transactions, the Banks are likely to have the documents sought; absent evidence from the Banks suggesting a thorough search would locate documents, the statutory test for third party discovery under s42 Cap 4 and RHC O24 r7A is not met, so the summonses must be dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 767
Parties
Petitioner: Trenus Oceanway Ltd; 1st Respondent: Richland International Limited; 2nd Respondent: Smartplace Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCCW352/2014
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (hccw 352 of 2014) / Decision on Third Party Discovery Summonses in Chambers
Outcome
Summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Discovery, Discovery Compliance, Non Party Disclosure Under High Court Ordinance, Document Retention by Banks
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Banking Law Third Party Discovery Discovery Compliance Non Party Disclosure Under High Court Ordinance Document Retention by Banks

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trenus Oceanway Ltd

Petitioner

Richland International Limited

1st Respondent

Smartplace Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings (hccw 352 of 2014) / Decision on Third Party Discovery Summonses in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent has demonstrated that the Banks are likely to have the documents sought
  2. 2 Application of s42 High Court Ordinance and RHC O24 r7A test of likelihood for third party discovery
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner's non-compliance with earlier discovery orders justified third party discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate that, more than seven years after the latest relevant transactions, the Banks are likely to have the documents sought; absent evidence from the Banks suggesting a thorough search would locate documents, the statutory test for third party discovery under s42 Cap 4 and RHC O24 r7A is not met, so the summonses must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summonses dismissed

Orders

  • Summonses dismissed
  • 1st Respondent to pay the Petitioner's costs of the application with a certificate for two counsel