NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Given the respondents' inability to effect prompt classification because of the expert's absence and the volume of documents, and because the court has jurisdiction to extend the time for an Order 24 Rule 10 notice, the proper exercise of discretion was to accept the respondents' timetable (produce unobjected documents and issue the notice by 15 February 1999) and to adjourn the summons rather than strike out the affidavits.

Citation
NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: NG YAT CHI; 1st Respondent: MAX SHARE LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 February 1999
Case Number
HCCW321/1996
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding‑up) No. 321 of 1996 Under Companies Ordinance Cap. 32 (sections 168 a and 177(1)(f)) / Application for an Unless Order on Disclosure; Hearing in Chambers; Adjourned Pending Production of Documents
Outcome
Application for immediate unless order refused; hearing adjourned to enable disclosure timetable agreed by respondents
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Order 24 Rule 10(2), Disclosure of Documents Referred to in Affidavits, Extension of Time, Strike Out Affidavits, Costs
Source Language
EN
Companies Law Civil Procedure Evidence Disclosure/discovery Unless Order Order 24 Rule 10(2) Disclosure of Documents Referred to in Affidavits Extension of Time +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG YAT CHI

Petitioner

MAX SHARE LIMITED

1st Respondent

CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding‑up) No. 321 of 1996 Under Companies Ordinance Cap. 32 (sections 168 a and 177(1)(f)) / Application for an Unless Order on Disclosure; Hearing in Chambers; Adjourned Pending Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should make an unless order striking out respondents' affidavits for non‑production of documents
  2. 2 Whether Order 24 Rule 10(2) time limits could be extended
  3. 3 What disclosure is required where affidavits refer to numerous accounting documents

Ratio Decidendi

Given the respondents' inability to effect prompt classification because of the expert's absence and the volume of documents, and because the court has jurisdiction to extend the time for an Order 24 Rule 10 notice, the proper exercise of discretion was to accept the respondents' timetable (produce unobjected documents and issue the notice by 15 February 1999) and to adjourn the summons rather than strike out the affidavits.

Court Disposition

Application for immediate unless order refused; hearing adjourned to enable disclosure timetable agreed by respondents

Orders

  • Hearing of the summons adjourned to a date after 15 February 1999.
  • Respondents to produce by 15 February 1999 those documents to which no objection is taken.