HCA8721/96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 8721 OF 1996
______________________
BETWEEN:
CHAN CHUNG WAI
1st
Plaintiff
CHAN CHUNG CHUN
2nd
Plaintiff
CHAN CHUNG YIN
3rd
Plaintiff
CHU PUI CHING
4th
Plaintiff
and
CHEUNG
WAI PUI
1st Defendant
CHANG
KUO HSIEN
2nd Defendant
CHANG WEI CHUNG
3rd Defendant
WAI
WAN CHIN
4th Defendant
RAINBOW
COME LIMITED
5th Defendant
JIN
JIANG TRADING COMPANY (H.K.) LIMITED
6th Defendant
ELEGANT
VIEW LIMITED
7th Defendant
JAN
NAM HONG LIMITED
8th Defendant
______________________
Coram: Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers
Date of hearing : 2 March 1998
Date of delivery : 2 March 1998
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
1. This
is an appeal from an order of a master ordering the 1st to 7th
Defendants (“the Defendants”) to file and serve a further and better List of
Documents to be verified by affirmation, with specific reference as to each
category of documents specified thereunder.
2. On
appeal before me, the parties have helpfully confined their dispute to 4 items
in the Master’s Order, viz. items (8), (9), (11) and (12).
3. Mr
Mak for the Plaintiffs (Respondents) does not present his case on the basis of
Order 24 rule 7, but on Order 24 rule 3.
Note 24/3/5 provides that an order may be made for a further and better
list of documents where it appears (a) from the list itself, (b) from the
documents referred to in it, or (c) from admissions made either in the
pleadings of the party making discovery or otherwise, that the party making
discovery has or has had other relevant documents in his possession, custody or
power.
4. In
relation to items (8) and (9), Mr. Poon concedes he should make discovery of
notices to the Companies Registry in relation to the appointment of the 1st ,
2nd and 3rd Defendants and Kwok Lo Sum as directors or
secretary of the 6th Defendant, and in relation to the appointment
of the 1st , 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants as directors or secretary of the 7th Defendant.
5. That
being the case, I cannot see how he can resist making discovery of the relevant
minutes of meetings relating to the appointments, since the notices to the
Companies Registry would necessarily have reference to the dates of appointment
of those officers, and they would have been appointed pursuant to meetings
which would have to be minuted.
The relevance of these documents is evident from the disputes on the
pleadings as to the periods of appointment to those offices: see paragraphs 14
& 15 of the Statement of Claim and paragraphs 26-31 of the Defence.
6. The
correspondence is however another matter.
There may or may not have been any such correspondence; it is not
suggested that it has been referred to in the original list, or any documents
therein, or been admitted in the Defence, and it is therefore premature at this
stage to order a further and better list to include this correspondence.
7. In
relation to items (11) and (12), these concern brands of Chinese medicines that
the 8th Defendant had previously dealt in as sole distributor. In their Defence, the Defendants had
admitted that the 8th Defendant had been distributor of “various” Chinese medicines (paragraph 37),
and has asserted that the 6th Defendant began to carry on the
business of selling and distributing Chinese medicines in 1992, which included
two types of Chinese medicines previously sold by the 8th Defendant
(paragraph 51). As far as the 5th
Defendant is concerned, it is pleaded that it carries on business as a retailer
of Chinese medicines distributed by the 6th Defendant.
8. In
my judgment, it is premature for the Plaintiffs now to ask for discovery of
documents relating to the brands they say the 8th Defendant had previously
distributed, without knowing what specifically is the case of the Defendants
relating to each of the brands.
The pleadings can be better particularised by both sides, so as to
better define and confine the scope of dispute in relation to the particular
brands of Chinese medicines. When
that is done, the Plaintiffs would have a better idea as to which medicines the
Defendants admit they are involved with, and then a further and better list may
be sought if appropriate.
9. Accordingly
I would set aside the order of the Master in relation to items (11) and (12),
and for items (8) and (9), I would vary the Master’s order to read as follows:
“(8) All
notices to the Companies Registry, minutes of board meetings and minutes of
general meetings including annual general meetings and extraordinary general
meetings of the 6th Defendant in relation to the appointment of the
1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants and Kwok Lo Sum as
directors or secretary of the 6th Defendant.
(9) All
notices to the Companies Registry, minutes of board meetings and minutes of
general meetings including annual general meetings and extraordinary general
meetings of the 7th Defendant in relation to the appointment of the
1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th Defendants
as directors or secretary of the 7th Defendant”.
(Following argument on
costs)
10. I
would order the costs before the Master to be paid by the Defendants in any
event with certificate for counsel, but that the costs of today to follow the event. Since the Defendants have substantially succeeded today, I
would order that the costs be paid by the Plaintiffs in any event.
(MARIA YUEN)
Judge of the Court of First
Instance
High Court
Mr Tony Poon (instructed by Lau Wong & Chan) for 1st to 7th Defendants
Mr Andrew Mak (instructed by Howell & Co) for Plaintiffs