RE CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD

RE CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD

Questions 2 and 4 were ordered withdrawn because the ownership and provenance of the 2nd respondent were collateral to the issues pleaded and would not materially assist in determining whether the principal company was a quasi-partnership or whether the petitioner suffered unfair prejudice; therefore the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RE CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Patkie Investments Limited; 2nd Respondent: Super-Style International Limited; 3rd Respondent: Catdave Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 2007
Case Number
HCCW45/2006
Procedural Posture
Company Petition (unfair Prejudice / Winding Up / S168 a Alternative) / Interlocutory Contested Summonses for Interrogatories and Inspection
Outcome
Relief granted to 2nd and 3rd respondents to withdraw interrogatories 2 and 4; petitioner granted leave to withdraw its summons for inspection; petitioner ordered to pay costs of the respondents in the two summonses
Legal Topics
Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Winding Up, Section 168 a Companies Ordinance, Inspection of Share Register, Interrogatories, Discovery and Fishing Expeditions
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Winding Up Section 168 a Companies Ordinance Inspection of Share Register Interrogatories +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patkie Investments Limited

Petitioner

Super-Style International Limited

2nd Respondent

Catdave Investments Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition (unfair Prejudice / Winding Up / S168 a Alternative) / Interlocutory Contested Summonses for Interrogatories and Inspection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories numbered 2 and 4 must be answered by the 2nd respondent
  2. 2 Whether ownership of the 2nd respondent is relevant to issues in the petition
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner should be permitted to inspect the 2nd respondent's share register

Ratio Decidendi

Questions 2 and 4 were ordered withdrawn because the ownership and provenance of the 2nd respondent were collateral to the issues pleaded and would not materially assist in determining whether the principal company was a quasi-partnership or whether the petitioner suffered unfair prejudice; therefore the interrogatories were not sufficiently relevant or necessary to be answered.

Court Disposition

Relief granted to 2nd and 3rd respondents to withdraw interrogatories 2 and 4; petitioner granted leave to withdraw its summons for inspection; petitioner ordered to pay costs of the respondents in the two summonses

Orders

  • Questions 2 and 4 of the interrogatories served by the petitioner are to be withdrawn (relief granted to 2nd and 3rd respondents)
  • Leave granted to the petitioner to withdraw its summons for inspection issued on 16 February 2007