Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 221 examination

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (In liquidation) v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2014

The Court held that Mr Tsang was a contributory and a party to the winding up petition entitled to appeal the winding up order; he was not an amicus curiae; lack of a tangible economic interest did not deprive him of standing to challenge jurisdiction or exercise of discretion to wind up; his contempt for non‑attendance at s221 examination did not justify striking out or dismissing his appeal; accordingly the application to strike out the appeal was dismissed and costs of the application were awarded to Mr Tsang.
28 Feb 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (In liquidation) v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 111
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2014

The Court of Appeal held the three core requirements inform the exercise of discretion under s.327 and are not absolute jurisdictional bars; the third requirement may be dispensed with in exceptional cases where the connection with Hong Kong and the benefits of a Hong Kong liquidation are sufficiently strong. The judge did not err in reopening the hearing, admitting fresh evidence, or in exercising his discretion to make the winding up order; the appeal is dismissed.
6 Feb 2015

THE JOINT & SEVERAL PROVIISONAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL PROVIISONAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW435/2012

The court held that section 221(3) does not extend to the broad production of private papers and documents about third‑party assets and the value/recoverability of claims as sought; however section 221(1) does permit oral examination on the value and recoverability of any actual or contingent causes of action and on assets of the company under the control of the respondent or associated persons. Accordingly the production application in its extended form was refused but the requested oral examination on specified topics was ordered.
21 May 2009

TTHE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF UNITED PACIFIC TRADING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LIAO ZHE

Citation

TTHE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF UNITED PACIFIC TRADING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LIAO ZHE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW424/2006

The liquidators demonstrated a reasonable requirement for an oral examination and production of documents; the respondent, by virtue of his positions in the company and related entities, was in a position to produce documents on the specified matters; the court exercised its discretion in favour of the liquidators and ordered oral examination and production of documents in Schedule 1 except item A1, with costs ordered against the respondent.
25 Oct 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. KIN YUEN

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. KIN YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV254/2007

The Court held the orders should stand: advance production of documents with confidentiality restrictions and a prohibition on discussing those documents with legal advisers absent consent or leave is a proportionate and lawful measure to protect the integrity of s221 examinations and confidentiality of materials; the direction does not infringe Article 35 because the right to legal advice is not absolute and the examinee retains the ability to seek advice with court or liquidators' permission and is not prejudiced given s221's non‑adversarial nature and absence of trial protections against s…
24 Aug 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FUNG SEE MAN

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FUNG SEE MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2000

The liquidators established a reasonable requirement under s.221 given the respondent's senior role, newly obtained documents and the scope of transactions under investigation; the court must balance the liquidators' investigatory needs against potential prejudice to the respondent and found the balance favoured the liquidators; accordingly an order for oral examination and production of documents in the respondent's power or custody was justified and granted.
24 Aug 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FUNG SEE MAN

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FUNG SEE MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2000

The court held that the liquidators established a reasonable requirement under section 221 to examine the respondent and to order production of documents within his custody or power; the court gave weight to the liquidators' investigative needs given newly obtained materials and group complexity, rejected the respondent's jurisdictional and residence objections, and found the order proportionate rather than oppressive.
17 Jul 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD v. [respondent]

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD v. [respondent]
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2000

The judge held that, balancing the examinee's right to legal advice against the need to maintain the integrity and confidentiality of the s.221 examination, directions prohibiting the examinee and his legal advisers from conferring about the contents of documents supplied by the liquidators (except with leave of the court or written consent of the liquidators) were appropriate; documents are to be provided seven days in advance solely to refresh memory and are not to be copied and must be returned after the examination; liberty to apply to vary or lift restrictions.
17 Jul 2007

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD v. [respondent]

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD v. [respondent]
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2000

The court ordered the respondent to be orally examined under s221 and made confidentiality and disclosure directions limiting the respondent and his legal advisers from conferring over the documents supplied by the liquidators without the liquidators' written consent or leave of the court, as a proportionate means to prevent coaching and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the examination while allowing the respondent sufficient opportunity to refresh his memory and liberty to apply to vary the restrictions.
20 Jun 2005

RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW735/2002

The examinee's unreasonable refusal to attend a voluntary interview necessitated the court-ordered section 221 examination; therefore, on the facts, the examinee must pay the liquidators' legal costs of the examination, to be taxed if not agreed.