HO LONG YIU v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD AND OTHERS

DCMP 2573/2025

[2025] HKDC 1366

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2573 OF 2025

------------------------

------------------------

------------------------

------------------------

DECISION

------------------------

1.  Through an affirmation made by Tang Ka Leung Jack back in May 2025, the Plaintiff (“P”) alleged she fell victim to an investment scam and would like to inspect various bankers’ records using Section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) before commencing civil proceedings against the alleged wrongdoers to recover various sums. An originating summons was issued on 12 May 2025 for this purpose. Master B Mak directed that this matter should be heard by a Judge and on 24 June 2025, P’s solicitors went to the Listing Office to get a hearing date fixed. This matter came to be heard by me today (8 August 2025).

2.  As DHCJ Maurellet SC had explained in Goliath Far East Ltd v Teng Fei Run Trade Ltd [2019] 4 HKLRD 282 [2019] HKCFI 1959 while a court of law has the jurisdiction to make an order under Section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) without notice to the banks, in exercising the court’s discretion it is a relevant and highly material consideration whether the banks had been given adequate notice.

3.  Up until yesterday (7 August 2025), the materials before me were scanty. They only showed that on 30 July 2025, Wilkinson & Grist (“W&G”) filed a Notice to Act for Shanghai Commercial Bank Limited, the 1^st Defendant (“D1”) herein. By W&G’s letter dated 7 August 2025, D1 confirmed its neutral position. W&G’s attendance had therefore been excused by me. There was, however, no affidavit of service or indeed any document before me showing whether notice had or had not been given to the remaining banks and if so, their positions vis-à-vis P’s application. I found that highly unsatisfactory, as the originating summons was issued as early as on 12 May 2025, and much could have been done since then.

4.  As I had mentioned in Lei Yukang v Lin Youjun [2023] HKDC 568, practitioners need to bear in mind what was said in JTM324 Strategic Advisors, Inc v Permex Co Ltd [2023] 1 HKLRD 1437 [2023] HKCFI 403 (§18). A court of law is not a rubber-stamp. All parties to all civil actions and their legal representatives should assist the court by placing all relevant materials before the court, in a timely and helpful manner. In the absence of affidavit evidence telling me the remaining banks had been served with all papers, and in the absence of any document telling me the position taken by the remaining banks, I would not be prepared to make the order sought, which means the inadequate preparation would have caused delays.

5.  I have this morning belatedly received an affidavit of service, plus copies of correspondence, which I scrutinized. With the new materials I am prepared to, and I do hereby, make an order in terms of the draft order lodged by Mr Jack Tang of Huen & Partners, as revised by oral discussions in court. In gist, having considered all materials before me and the relevant authorities including but not limited to China Medical Technologies Inc (in Liquidation) v Wu Xiaodong [2021] HKCFI 286, this specific case appears to me to be an appropriate one for bankers’ records to be inspected.

6.  Practitioners are strongly encouraged to file or lodge affidavit of service, plus copies of relevant correspondence, in good time, in making applications using Section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8).