FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

The court limited discovery to documents directly relevant to the pleaded complaints of wrongful removal of books and alleged misappropriations in the period identified in the petitions (principally Feb–Mar 2016 and related records through 30 April 2016). Documents after April 2016 and broader fishing‑expedition...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Fung Tin Yau; 1st Respondent: Fung Tin Shing; 2nd Respondent: Fung Wing See; 3rd Respondent: Great Anchor International Limited; 3rd Respondent: Maxfortune Trading Limited; 3rd Respondent: Premium Management Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Case Number
HCCW170/2016
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Discovery (summons) Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Summonses partially allowed: limited further discovery ordered; wider discovery and requests for documents after April 2016 refused as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Specific Discovery, Relevance of Documents, Misappropriation Allegations, Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Discovery Tax Law Trusts and Estates Winding Up Specific Discovery Relevance of Documents +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Tin Yau

Petitioner

Fung Tin Shing

1st Respondent

Fung Wing See

2nd Respondent

Great Anchor International Limited

3rd Respondent

Maxfortune Trading Limited

3rd Respondent

Premium Management Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Discovery (summons) Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the categories of documents sought are relevant to the petitions' pleaded complaints
  2. 2 Scope and temporal limit of discovery (whether documents after April 2016 are discoverable)
  3. 3 Whether respondents have disclosed all documents in their possession custody or power

Ratio Decidendi

The court limited discovery to documents directly relevant to the pleaded complaints of wrongful removal of books and alleged misappropriations in the period identified in the petitions (principally Feb–Mar 2016 and related records through 30 April 2016). Documents after April 2016 and broader fishing‑expedition requests were refused. The respondents must affirm they have disclosed documents in categories 1 and 3 and must disclose bank statements or passbooks for identified accounts and accounting records (vouchers, invoices, receipts, payment slips, bank instructions) for 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016; costs awarded on a limited basis (respondents to pay 20% of petitioner's costs with...

Court Disposition

Summonses partially allowed: limited further discovery ordered; wider discovery and requests for documents after April 2016 refused as irrelevant

Orders

  • Respondents to file an affirmation confirming they have disclosed documents in categories 1 and 3 that are in their possession custody or power
  • Respondents to disclose bank statements or passbooks for the identified accounts (listed in reasons) necessary to reconcile withdrawals and deposits relevant to the Feb–Mar 2016 complaint