PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

The 3rd defendant did not comply with the unless orders: the supplemental lists were inadequate and in parts illusory, documents sought were or would have been in her possession, custody or power given her status as sole shareholder/director/signatory of the 2nd defendant, there were no extraneous circumstances excusing non-compliance, and the court properly exercised its discretion to enter judgment for non-compliance; appeal dismissed.

Citation
PREMIERE AGRI TECHNOLOGIES ASIA INC AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG JOHN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Premiere Agri Technologies Asia Inc; 2nd Plaintiff: Jip Hong International (HK) Limited; 1st Defendant: Wong Siu Hung John; 2nd Defendant: Sandal Eagle Limited; 3rd Defendant: Sit Sit (also known as Sit Sit Michelle)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Case Number
HCA790/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (discovery Application; Fiduciary Duty/conspiracy Allegations) / Appeal From Interlocutory Unless Order for Discovery (court of First Instance, Deputy High Court Judge)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Specific Discovery, Default Judgment for Non Compliance, Bank Account Disclosure, Third Party Document Possession, Employee Conflict of Interest
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Disclosure/discovery Fiduciary Duties Conspiracy Fraud Unless Order Specific Discovery Default Judgment for Non Compliance +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premiere Agri Technologies Asia Inc

1st Plaintiff

Jip Hong International (HK) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Siu Hung John

1st Defendant

Sandal Eagle Limited

2nd Defendant

Sit Sit (also known as Sit Sit Michelle)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (discovery Application; Fiduciary Duty/conspiracy Allegations) / Appeal From Interlocutory Unless Order for Discovery (court of First Instance, Deputy High Court Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd defendant failed to comply with an unless order for discovery
  2. 2 Whether the discovery furnished was made in good faith or was illusory
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought were in the 3rd defendant's possession, custody or power

Ratio Decidendi

The 3rd defendant did not comply with the unless orders: the supplemental lists were inadequate and in parts illusory, documents sought were or would have been in her possession, custody or power given her status as sole shareholder/director/signatory of the 2nd defendant, there were no extraneous circumstances excusing non-compliance, and the court properly exercised its discretion to enter judgment for non-compliance; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the 3rd defendant for non-compliance with the unless order (judgment entered 18 July 2003)
  • 3rd defendant's appeal dismissed