Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 221 companies ordinance

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2021

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. THE BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1504
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2016

The court refused leave to file the respondent's notice out of time because the delay (about four years) was substantial and unexplained, the proposed new grounds would cause real and serious prejudice and disruption to the appeal and the liquidation, and the new grounds were not sufficiently strong to justify upsetting case management; consequently the application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed as purposeless in light of that refusal.
3 Nov 2016

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP576/2016

Leave to appeal on grounds alleging misweighting of factors and refusal of oral examination was refused because the judge properly applied the balancing test under s221, gave adequate consideration to the liquidators' needs and potential oppression to the banks, and there was no demonstrable error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion warranting appellate intervention.
31 Mar 2009

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2008

The Court of Appeal allowed the liquidators' appeals, set aside the orders below and dismissed the summonses because the s221 examination transcripts were created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and are therefore protected by legal professional privilege; privilege cannot be overridden in these circumstances; related companies and third parties have no automatic right of access and no established waiver was shown.
31 Mar 2009

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD(in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD(in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV326/2008

The appeals were allowed and the orders below set aside because the s.221 examinations were conducted for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and litigation, so the resulting transcripts are protected by legal professional privilege which belongs to the liquidators; the respondents and related companies have no entitlement to access and waiver was not established.
23 Oct 2008

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2000

The court held the liquidators had not established legal professional privilege over the transcripts (no legal advice privilege; no factual basis for litigation privilege), and that disclosure of the applicants' own transcripts in these proceedings is not inconsistent with the purposes of s.221 and r.62. Exercising its discretion in the exceptional circumstances (complexity, age of events, number of issues), the court permitted limited disclosure to the applicants, their legal advisers and specified identified persons and related group defendants, subject to a solicitor's letter undertaking t…
22 May 2008

KIN YUEN v. THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation)

Citation

KIN YUEN v. THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation)
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/2008

The appeals were withdrawn by consent and there was no live controversy because the parties agreed no examination of the appellant would take place; accordingly leave to withdraw the appeals was granted by the single permanent judge under the powers to determine such applications and there is no order as to costs. The court did not decide the underlying constitutional question raised about the validity of the disputed restrictions under s.221 and art.35.
2 Oct 2007

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV331/2007

The application for a stay was refused because the court formed a preliminary view that the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success, there is an overriding public interest in allowing investigations to proceed after many years since the companies' liquidation, and the confidentiality and limited‑use safeguards in the existing orders mitigate prejudice, so a stay was not justified.
2 Oct 2007

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV332/2007

The Court refused the stay because, after forming a preliminary view, the appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success to justify a stay; there is strong public interest in concluding long‑running investigations (seven years since liquidation) and the judge's confidentiality and use restrictions on release of transcripts to the Department of Justice/Commercial Crimes Bureau adequately protect against prejudice to the appellant, so a stay would be inappropriate.
13 Sept 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2000

Court refused to order production of HSBC internal manuals but exercised its discretion under s.221 to require HSBC to provide a list of the documents for which legal professional privilege is claimed containing date, author, addressee and a brief description (without disclosing contents) and allowed retrieval/production of JSM‑SC documents from the sealed court box, balancing the sanctity of privilege with the liquidators' investigatory needs and following the Kadlunga principle that adequate non‑content descriptions may be ordered in appropriate cases.
13 Sept 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2000

The court held that HSBC must provide a list of documents withheld on grounds of legal professional privilege identifying date, author, addressee and a brief description (without contents) to enable the liquidators to decide whether to challenge privilege, and that HSBC may retrieve the sealed box to produce the JSM‑SC documents; the court refused to order production of HSBC internal manuals as outside the scope of the order or unnecessary given offers to explain documents.