DMITRY YANISHEVSKIY v. MAXIM MOSKALEV

HCA 1840/2019

[2026] HKCFI 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1840 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________

The Application

1.  This is the application made by the Plaintiff, by summons issued on 6 August 2025 (“Summons”), for leave to provide, and to compel the Defendant to provide, further signature samples to the parties’ handwriting authentication experts (“Experts”).

2.  By way of background, the Plaintiff instituted these proceedings on 3 March 2022, claiming the sum of US$4,592,215.76 against the Defendant under a promissory note dated 16 February 2018 (“Promissory Note”). At the core of the dispute is whether or not the Defendant’s signature on the Promissory Note is forged. The Plaintiff claims that the signature belongs to the Defendant; the Defendant claims that it is forged.

3.  On 28 February 2024, this Court issued directions and granted leave to the parties to adduce handwriting authentication expert evidence to address the question of whether the signature on the Promissory Note is that of the Defendant.

4.  Under the direction, the Experts were to hold a 1^st without prejudice meeting (“1^st WP Meeting”) for the purpose of endeavouring to agree on the methodologies, analyses and tests to be used, and in particular the number of and requirements for sample signatures to be provided by the Defendant to the Experts.

5.  The 1^st WP Meeting took place on 9 January 2025. It was attended by the Plaintiff’s expert (“Mr Liang”), the Defendant’s expert (“Mr Leung”), the Plaintiff’s solicitors, and the Defendant’s solicitor (“Mr Wai”).

6.  On 28 April 2025, the Defendant provided around 400 signatures contained in 24 documents (“Provided Samples”).

7.  By this Summons, the Plaintiff applies for:

(1)  leave to be granted to the Plaintiff to provide the Experts with 8 additional samples of the Defendant’s signatures on documents which are already in the Plaintiff’s possession (the “8 Additional Samples”);

(2)  an order to compel the Defendant to provide clear copies of his identity documents showing his signature (the “ID Documents”); and

(3)  an order to compel the Defendant to provide 20 further additional original documents containing his signature made within 5 years prior to the date of the Promissory Note (the “20 Additional Samples”).

8.  The Defendant has agreed to part of the Summons, and indicated that:

(1)  He does not oppose to Items 1 to 3 of the 8 Additional Samples being considered by the Experts; and

(2)  He would provide the ID Documents, which he did so on 15 September 2025.

9.  The Defendant however remains opposed to the rest of the Summons.

(1)  He objects to the provision of Items 4 to 8 of the 8 Additional Samples, on the basis that he has no clear recollection of signing those documents on which the signatures appear.

(2)  He also objects to the provision of the 20 Additional Samples on the basis that he has already used his best efforts but has not been able to locate any further sample signatures executed within 1 year of the Promissory Note.

10.  Therefore, the sample signatures presently available for the Experts to examine are:

(1)  3 signatures from Items 1 to 3 of the 8 Additional Samples;

(2)  7 signatures from the Defendant’s ID Documents; and

(3)  Around 400 signatures from the Provided Samples.

11.  On 19 November 2025, the Defendant applied by summons to file and serve the 10th Affirmation of Mr Wai, to exhibit the correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors concerning the provision of sample signatures to the Experts.

12.  Having considered the parties’ submissions, the pleadings and the affirmations, I was only prepared to make an order for the Plaintiff to provide Items 4 to 8 of the 8 Additional Samples to the Experts, and made an order to such effect, together with an order that the Defendant do provide the originals of all his ID documents. These are the reasons for my decision.

The task of the expert

13.  Counsel for the Plaintiff highlighted the relevant considerations for expert determination of handwriting, referring to the judgment in Nina Kung v Wang Din Shin (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387, at paras 24 to 25. In that case, Ribeiro PJ observed that the wider the sample of known signatures there is, the more reference points the expert will have against which to consider the genuineness or falsity of the questioned signatures, and the more secure his opinion will be. In the context of proving a will, the Court observed in the case that 18 samples of signatures were “limited” and “not sufficient” and that the experts in the case were thereby “hampered to some degree”. It was highlighted that an assumption cannot be made that all of the samples provided to the expert would be helpful. The expert would have to compare (inter alia) the type of pen used to make the signatures, and the type of paper used.

14.  Accordingly, it was pointed out by Counsel for the Plaintiff that it was necessary to provide and have available a reasonable range of samples for the Experts, and to furnish to them as comprehensive information as is reasonably available with regard to the signatures.

The Provided Samples

15.  The Plaintiff has pointed out that the majority of the Provided Samples are unsatisfactory, as they were “mass‑produced” signatures of the Defendant, repeated “artificially” on blank sheets of paper. Moreover, around 120 of these signatures were made in 2021, after the claim of forgery was raised. According to the Plaintiff, because these signatures were made artificially, there may be an element of self-interest or conscious suppression on the part of the Defendant at the time when the signatures were made.

16.  If the mass-produced samples are excluded, this leaves only 18 sample signatures which were “naturally” signed. The Plaintiff says that this is inadequate and the Experts will not be able to give a reliable opinion.

17.  The Plaintiff further submits that it is incredible for the Defendant to claim that he has only been able to produce two original documents for 2018 (the year in which the Promissory Note was signed).

18.  The Plaintiff accordingly contends that further and better samples are required for the Experts, giving rise to the Summons.

19.  The Defendant’s primary objection to the production of Items 4 to 8 and the 20 Additional Samples is that they were made outside the period of one year before and after the date of the Promissory Note, and would not be helpful to the Experts as they were not reasonably contemporaneous to the disputed signature.

20.  The Defendant further contends that it would be disproportionate to authorise production of the documents sought by the Plaintiff, because a “consensus” had been reached between the Experts at the 1^st WP Meeting, that the Defendant need only search for sample signatures primarily within one year before and one year after the date of the Promissory Note, with some limited flexibility for samples outside that period.

21.  It is to support this contention, that the Defendant seeks to file and serve the 10^th Affirmation of Mr Wai, which refers to various correspondences between the Plaintiff’s solicitors and the Defendant’s solicitors. In that correspondence, the Plaintiff’s solicitors complained that the Provided Samples fell outside the 2‑year period before and after the Promissory Note and therefore lacked contemporaneity. Additionally, in letters to the Plaintiff’s solicitors, Mr Liang had requested 20 to 30 signatures executed within 1 year of the Promissory Note. Accordingly, the Defendant submits that even on the view taken by the Plaintiff’s Expert, Items 4 to 8 are of limited value, as they were signed some 4.5 years before the Promissory Note.

22.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that at the 1^st WP Meeting, the Experts had not stipulated any fixed temporal limit on the samples to be provided. There was much debate on this in Counsel’s skeleton submissions.

23.  I do not find it necessary to refer to the parties’ correspondence which the Defendant seeks to adduce, in order to decipher whether any alleged and fixed “consensus” had been reached by the Experts at the 1^st WP Meeting. Even assuming, for present purposes, that there had been some consensus reached at the 1^st WP Meeting, the Court is entitled to hear the Experts’ current views on the adequacy of the documents so far provided after the 1^st WP Meeting, and to decide whether it is reasonable to revise any temporal scope agreed at the meeting.

24.  As Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out by reference to 皇河實業有限公司v Wan Chiu Yuen, unreported, DCCJ 4448/2011, 18 January 2013, the Court should not at the interlocutory stage resolve any dispute as to the methodology of the experts, and should facilitate the experts unless the test proposed is exceptional. Counsel also pointed out that under the Order made by the Court on 28 February 2024 at the 2^nd Case Management Conference, it was directed that the Defendant should fully cooperate with both handwriting authentication Experts in supplying their reasonably required sample signatures. I agree that unless it can be seen that the Expert was unreasonable in the request made, or that what the Expert or the parties required is totally unnecessary, there is no good reason at this stage for the Court not to assist the Experts in the production of their reports and to facilitate their execution of the task required of them.

25.  The real test for determination of the present dispute between the parties is whether the documents required by the Plaintiff, and to be put to the Experts, are reasonably necessary, or helpful.

26.  As Counsel for the Plaintiff explained, it is ultimately for the Experts themselves to determine what weight, if any, should be given to the sample signatures provided to them, and whether scrutiny of the samples provided are necessary for the formation of their opinions. It is for the Court to assess, at the end of the day, whether the opinion of each Expert, and the basis of his findings, are valid, convincing and to be preferred.

Items 4 to 8 of the 8 Additional Samples

27.  The Plaintiff’s case is that the 8 Additional Samples were all signed by the Defendant in the course of previous business dealings conducted between the parties before the disputed Promissory Note. They are all dated 3 or 4 October 2013.

28.  The Plaintiff pointed out that the documents containing the signatures as particularised in Items 4 to 8 were signed for transactions made in the course of the Defendant’s attempt to divest control of his companies and to acknowledge the value of the assets that were the subject of the aforesaid transfers. The Plaintiff has the original of the documents. The Plaintiff argued that, if the Defendant is to claim that those documents or his signatures thereon are forged, he must mount a proper challenge of authenticity to the signatures and documents, and none has been made in this case.

29.  The Plaintiff also pointed out that being original documents, Items 4 to 8 are particularly useful because they enable the Experts to compare the type of pen used, the writing speed, and the pressure applied to the paper, all of which are relevant to the assessment of the authenticity of the signature.

30.  The Plaintiff submits that Items 4 to 8 fall within the 5‑year temporal range that the Plaintiff’s Expert indicated could be considered. If, upon examination, the Experts consider the signatures to be of limited or no assistance, they can simply place no weight on them in their analysis.

31.  On the other hand, the Defendant’s case is that he has “no clear recollection” of signing the documents enumerated as Items 4 to 8. Since the authenticity and provenance of the documents are disputed, the Defendant contends that they should not be submitted to the Experts as sample signatures, as otherwise, the Defendant may have to adduce further evidence at trial to challenge their authenticity, and this would be a waste of time and a further distraction from the key issues for determination at trial.

32.  Since the documents described in items (4) to (6) of the 8 Additional Items were created in the course of the parties’ business dealings, which the Defendant does not dispute took place, the fact that he now claims he has no clear recollection of signing the documents is not a convincing reason to reject the signatures. If necessary, it is for the Defendant to convince the Court at trial that those signatures were not his - if he should maintain such stance at trial. That will be part of the overall assessment of the Defendant’s credibility at trial. It is pertinent that, despite their being outside the period of one year before/after the Promissory Note date, these are original documents on which the signatures appear. They are presently available and can be produced by the Plaintiff to the Experts. The Experts can no doubt make useful reference to them, after taking into account the time at which the signatures were made, by reference to the date when the Promissory Notes were signed.

33.  I therefore granted an order for production of Items (4) to (6) of the 8 Additional Samples.

20 Additional Samples

34.  In opposing the production of the 20 Additional Samples, the Defendant claims that he has exhausted his best efforts to locate more sample signatures within 1 year before or after the Promissory Note, but that his efforts have been in vain.

35.  With regard to the mass-produced samples, the Defendant claims that these were made for another unrelated set of Russian proceedings, and that there is no blanket rule for excluding made-to-order signatures. Even excluding the mass-produced signatures, there are a remainder of 28 signatures available, consisting of: (1) 18 “naturally” signed signatures from the Provided Samples; (2) 7 signatures from the ID Documents; and (3) 3 signatures from Items 1 to 3 of the 8 Additional Samples. These, the Defendant submits, are adequate for the purposes of the Experts’ examination.

36.  Finally, the Defendant submits that the 5-year period suggested by the Plaintiff for the 20 Additional Samples is arbitrary. The Defendant emphasised that even the Plaintiff’s own Expert has stated that even a 3-year period is insufficiently contemporaneous.

37.  In my judgment, the Experts may form and express their own opinion as to whether the mass-produced signatures, or the additional samples within any time range, are reliable or helpful samples, and if they are considered unhelpful, the Experts may exclude them from their consideration. It is then for the Court to decide on the value of each Expert’s opinion, on the basis of the materials he used.

38.  However, even leaving aside the mass-produced signatures which the Plaintiff claims are not useful samples, there are 28 signatures now available for the Experts to consider. I agree with the Defendant, that this is a reasonably sufficient pool, and bearing in mind the time span (within 5 years prior to the date of the Promissory Note) of the documents sought under the category of the 20 Additional Samples, it would be disproportionate to require the Defendant to look for and to provide any further documents which can be located, when they were not even contemporaneous in time to the Promissory Note. For that reason, I declined to grant an order for the provision of the 20 Additional Samples.

39.  To render the available samples most useful to the Experts, I have further ordered that the originals of all the Defendant’s passports, both expired and current, in the Defendant’s possession should be put in the custody of the Defendant’s solicitors, for production to the Experts for testing and examination if necessary. This is because Counsel pointed out at the hearing that the 7 signatures in the ID Documents are only photocopies. Upon enquiry by the Court, it was confirmed by the Defendant’s lawyers that the Defendant would be able to produce the originals of his ID Documents. As these are obviously good specimens of the Defendant’s genuine signatures, I have included their production in the order made.

Disposition

40.  The Plaintiff and the Defendant have agreed on the directions contained in a draft order, which I considered and amended, and an order was made in terms thereof.

41.  The costs of the Summons were ordered to be in the cause.