Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection of company documents

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2022

XIAO QUNYING v. PAP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3700
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2130/2021

Because the defendants provided an affirmed statement that the requested financial documents do not exist and had offered to pay the plaintiff's costs from 2 August 2022, there was no basis for an order for disclosure; consequently the proper order is no order for disclosure and a split costs order: defendants pay costs up to and including 18 November 2022, plaintiff pays defendants' costs thereafter from 19 November 2022.
23 Aug 2012

CHIU KIN LOK ROCKO AND ANOTHER v. MATSUE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHIU KIN LOK ROCKO AND ANOTHER v. MATSUE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2667/2011

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate necessity or that documents existed and had been improperly withheld; the 2nd defendant had provided opportunities to inspect and explained difficulties locating limited records after long inactivity, so court intervention under s121 was not warranted and costs were ordered against the plaintiffs.
27 Jul 2012

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2143/2011

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the respondents had no direct evidence that the applicant leaked to Caixin and the applicant denied the allegation on oath; the dispute over beneficial ownership was not materially probative of bona fides given the applicant was the registered 30% owner and the apparent support of the beneficial owner; allowing cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose and would undermine the expeditious statutory procedure under s152FA.
4 Jun 2012

CHEN TSING KWAN AND 2 OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN TSING KWAN AND 2 OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2060/2011

The court allowed production and inspection because the applicants, as directors and shareholders, had established a justified suspicion of wrongful dealing and serious accounting irregularities warranting investigation, and the respondent failed to prove that inspection would be used to injure the companies or otherwise abused; statutory inspection rights under s121 and s152FA were consistent with the common law and supported inspection in these circumstances.
4 Jun 2012

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2059/2011

Directors have a statutory and common law right to inspect company documents and shareholders may inspect when they have a proper purpose; applicants demonstrated reasonable suspicion of serious irregularities and the respondent failed to prove any real risk that inspection would be abused to injure the companies, therefore production and inspection were ordered and costs awarded to the applicants.
4 Jun 2012

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2062/2011

The applicants established a justified suspicion of wrongful dealing and accounting irregularities; the statutory and common law rights of directors and shareholders to inspect company documents applied, and the respondent failed to prove that inspection would be abused to materially injure the companies; accordingly the applications for production and inspection were allowed.
5 Sept 2007

JEFFREY THOMAS ROBBINS AND ANOTHER v. PEAKTOP TECHNOLOGIES (USA) HONG KONG LTD

Citation

JEFFREY THOMAS ROBBINS AND ANOTHER v. PEAKTOP TECHNOLOGIES (USA) HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2456/2006

The judge exercised discretion to award costs to the Applicants because their application was well-founded when brought and would have succeeded but for the Respondent's unexplained delay in removing them as directors; that failure rendered an exceptional costs order appropriate despite the Applicants' withdrawal.
15 Jun 2007

PUN CHING CHAU v. SUEN KAR CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

PUN CHING CHAU v. SUEN KAR CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1050/2007

The plaintiff, as a director, was entitled under s121 to inspection and copies; the 1st defendant's conditions (restrictive timing, requirement of plaintiff's presence, refusal of photocopies and other obstructive measures) were unreasonable and amounted to effective denial, therefore the court ordered production and access on normal weekday hours and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
10 Feb 2006

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH

Citation

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4616/2001

The court refused to amend paragraph 5 because there was no clerical error, slip or ambiguity; it declined to give the directional ruling sought on the supplemental bill, leaving the issue to the Taxing Master; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the defendant's 3 February 2006 summons, assessed on a gross basis at HK$27,000.