Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection order

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2019

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, SINGAPORE BRANCH v. INTER PACIFIC GROUP PTE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1617/2019

On the limited material before the court the plaintiff has crossed the threshold of showing a good arguable proprietary claim against the 8th and 9th defendants; given the urgency to trace funds the advantages of granting the inspection order today outweigh potential prejudice, and the judge was minded to grant the application subject to a substantive hearing to determine continuation of any injunction.
28 Aug 2019

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

The court found that both shareholders committed acts of unfairly prejudicial conduct in different respects but that the practical remedy is a buyout. On the evidence the appropriate relief is an order that Roth buy out Orlov's 120,000 shares in Three Towns Capital Limited; the valuation date for that buyout is fixed at 1 January 2018; certain complaints (notably denial/delay of access to documents, exclusion from management, orchestrated disruption of Katla and diversion of an opportunity to purchase the Karelian vessels) establish unfair prejudice while other complaints were rejected; deriv…
30 Sept 2016

LEHNER EWALD STEPHAN v. PUI TSAN PO AND OTHERS

Citation

LEHNER EWALD STEPHAN v. PUI TSAN PO AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1310/2016

Given that tests on Roof B were negative and the plaintiff's expert provided a plausible basis that Roof A may be the source, and absent any concrete evidence discrediting the expert, the Court has jurisdiction under s47D DCO to order access to Flat 23A and Roof A to carry out specified investigative tests; defendants must permit such access.
8 Aug 2014

CHEN WENJUN v. LIU LUYUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN WENJUN v. LIU LUYUAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1802/2014

The court continued the ex parte injunction pending determination, allowed limited variation to permit the 1st defendant weekly living expenses of HK$30,000 on filing a corroborating affidavit and legal expenses at HK$300,000/week subject to an overall cap of HK$2.1 million, kept the disclosure order in force but stayed the inspection order pending the substantive hearing and/or discharge application while permitting the plaintiff liberty to apply to lift the stay; time limits for filing evidence and compliance were fixed and costs were ordered in the cause with a certificate for two counsel.
10 Dec 2012

LEUNG WAN MING v. LIE MEY FONG

Citation

LEUNG WAN MING v. LIE MEY FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1267/2011

The court granted the plaintiff leave to enter the defendant's premises and to carry out the specified tests in exhibit LTKA-3 and to inspect during removal of the unauthorised building works, subject to safeguards: tests that risk property damage (eg dye) are permitted only with indemnity by the plaintiff; flow meter and pressurised pipe tests are permitted provided an additional test meter is installed and removed and original meter is not interfered with and disturbed pipe sections are reinstated; three hours are allowed for testing; moisture and HIS tests are permitted; costs of the tests…
19 Jan 2007

MOK LAI CHUN v. EVERWISE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOK LAI CHUN v. EVERWISE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV323/2006

The Court allowed the appeal: the charging order and subsequent orders were set aside because there was no finding of liability against the Intervener or Globe Well HK, the Lands Tribunal Order operated only in personam against Everwise and could not create an in rem charge on Premises B owned by a different entity, service and joinder were insufficient to justify treating the BVI Intervener as the judgment debtor, and the trial judge wrongly refused leave to adduce further evidence.
15 Nov 2006

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NIN FUNG BUILDING, HOMANTIN v. OVER AND ABOVE LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NIN FUNG BUILDING, HOMANTIN v. OVER AND ABOVE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9371/1998

The trial date was vacated because the defendant failed to give timely notice to all owners as earlier advised, causing insufficient time for newly appointed administrators and solicitors to prepare; fairness required allowing inspection and expert evidence with fixed timetables, and the balance of prejudice and conduct of the parties justified vacating the trial and granting the inspection and expert report directions; parties are in pari delicto so no order as to costs.
13 May 2004

LAGUNA PROPERTIES LTD v. NEW TREND INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

LAGUNA PROPERTIES LTD v. NEW TREND INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19128/1998

The court refused the Order 29 r.2 preservation and inspection application because it was made too late, amounted to a fishing expedition not confined to pleaded matters, and would cause further delay disproportionate to any likely benefit; accordingly the discretionary power under Order 29 r.2 should not be exercised in the plaintiff's favour.
26 Aug 2000

REAL HONOUR LTD. v. GAMUSE CO. LTD.

Citation

REAL HONOUR LTD. v. GAMUSE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA29/1999

The adjudicator's refusal to order inspection was within her discretion because the applicant failed to establish that the respondent had possession and control of the meter room and because a post-work inspection would likely be irrelevant to the condition at the time of the work; however the costs award must be reasonable under s24 and the excessive sum awarded below was substituted with $500.
10 Jan 2000

CONSOLIDATED PROJECTS LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE TUG "DE PING"

Citation

CONSOLIDATED PROJECTS LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE TUG "DE PING"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2000

The court dismissed the application for inspection because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special circumstances or irreparable harm necessary to justify an exceptional inspection order, the evidence before the court was insufficient and speculative, and jurisdictional and contractual factors (exclusive China Maritime Court clause, arbitration/LOF, lack of leave to serve out/joinder, unclear pleaded causes of action) precluded the relief sought.