Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mutual taking of evidence arrangement

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

TENWOW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL6/2023

The application for a Letter of Request was dismissed because (1) a LOR is not an appropriate mechanism to relieve a party of discovery obligations in Hong Kong courts, (2) the requested assistance did not fall within Article 6 of the Mutual Arrangement (which concerns taking evidence) and thus there was no proper basis to believe a LOR would be executed, (3) D2 failed to demonstrate that Mainland law imposes a blanket prohibition on transferring the audit working papers or that Regulated Information is involved, and (4) discretionary considerations (futility and undue delay prejudicial to tr…
5 Jul 2022

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. ZHENG DELI also known as CHEANG LEI and CHEANG TAK LEI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1676/2011

The Arrangement does not permit fully fledged cross‑examination when the Hong Kong SAR Court is the requesting party and there was insufficient basis to suppose the PRC courts would be receptive to a request to permit common law style cross‑examination; examination‑in‑chief alone would not be necessary or sufficient for the purposes of justice in the circumstances and therefore the letter of request was refused.
5 Jul 2022

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. TSUI YEE KWAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1867/1999

The Arrangement, read objectively and in light of relevant authorities, does not permit fully fledged cross-examination by the Mainland courts when the HKSAR court is the requesting party; because the inability to obtain proper cross-examination in this case meant that examination-in-chief alone would not be necessary or desirable for the purposes of justice, the summons for a letter of request was dismissed and retrospective leave to file evidence refused.
23 Mar 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1822/2013

KPMG failed to discharge the high burden under Order 12 r 8A to show it would be unjust to allow the protective writs to run their natural course: service is not necessary to obtain letters of request, the MOF opinion did not establish that voluntary production is unlawful, the Mutual Arrangement is uncertain and inadequate for the Liquidators' broader investigatory purposes under the section 221 orders, and the delay was substantially caused by KPMG's obstructive conduct; accordingly the application to force service is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TENWOW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. ZHENG DELI also known as CHEANG LEI and CHEANG TAK LEI

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. TSUI YEE KWAN

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)