TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

HCCW 352/2014

[2020] HKCFI 2774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 352 OF 2014

________________

________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 17 September 2020 I heard the pre-trial review for the trial of this matter, which had been fixed for a 10-day trial commencing on 12 October 2020. For reasons that are not material to the short application that I deal with in this decision the trial was adjourned.

2.  By a summons dated 12 August 2020 the Petitioner seeks an express undertaking that the 1^st Respondent and Mr Lau Wing Yan (the beneficial owner of the 1^st Respondent) provide an express undertaking that they do not use any of the documents disclosed to them in these proceedings for any purpose other than the conduct of HCCW 352/2014.  These proceedings are a shareholders’ dispute.  They form part of a series of actions between the beneficial owner of the Petitioner (Mr Chu Kong) and Mr Lau (I believe 20 actions) arising from the termination of their joint shipping business.  As the number of actions between them demonstrates the ending of their business relationship was acrimonious and no trust exists between them.  Presumably this at least, in part, accounts for the application for an express undertaking not to misuse disclosed documents.

3.  Mr Lau and the 1^st Respondent are already under an implied undertaking not to use any documents disclosed other than for the conduct of these proceedings without the permission of the court or the Petitioner.  Presumably Mr Lau has now been advised of this (if he had not before) and the serious consequences of breaching the implied undertaking. It does not seem to me that the evidence in Mr Chu’s 9^th affirmation in support of the application justifies requiring an express undertaking to be made.  What Mr Chu largely seems to be complaining about is Mr Lau in various circumstances referring to some aspects of the litigation between them.  It does not follow that this involves misuse of disclosed documents. The litigation these gentlemen have generated is taking up enough court time already without adding applications of this sort, which I will dismiss with costs to the Respondents payable forthwith with a certificate for one counsel given the simplicity of the application.