HWOO HUANG LINDA v. FU BEING SAN & OTHERS

HCA 4888/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4888 OF 2001

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. The plaintiff's claim in this action is based on an alleged fraud or dishonesty on the part of the defendants.

2. Up to now, probably due to the shortage of available time, the defendants have not responded to the claim by way of affidavit evidence. Be that as it may, this means the plaintiff's claim (as it now stands) remains unchallenged. In these circumstances, the 1st and 2nd defendants sensibly do not oppose the continuation of the ex-parte Mareva injunction order until the determination of the plaintiff's inter-partes summons dated 13 November 2001. They however oppose the application (by way of paragraph 1 of the summons dated 19 November 2001) for disclosure of information which the plaintiff says is in aid of the Mareva order. The 2 grounds of objection are in essence that the disclosure order sought therein is:

(1) too wide and oppressive;

(2) unnecessary.

3. In relation to (1) above, defence counsel said that it is oppressive to ask for disclosure of the defendants' assets beside those related to the US$13 million claimed by the plaintiff. In relation to (2) above, defence counsel argues that paragraph 2 of the summons should already adequately protect the plaintiff's interest.

4. I do not agree with any of the above arguments. There is no need to set out in details the reasons for this view, save to say that cases such as A v. C [1981] QB 956 and Omar v. Omar [1995] 1 WLR 1428 have already dealt with the court's discretion to order disclosure of information in actions where proprietary and personal claims were brought.

5. For the above reasons, I will make an order against the 1st and 2nd defendants in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the summons, but:

(a) the time allowed for in paragraph 2 should be "3 December 2001" instead;

(b) the time allowed for in paragraph 3 should be "7 December 2001" instead;

(c) a proviso be added to the end of paragraph 1 which reads:

"provided the 1st and 2nd defendants may refuse to provide, stating the ground for doing so, the above information on the ground that to do so may incriminate either or both of them for an offence other than an offence under the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210."

(d) the order is subject to an undertaking from the plaintiff that the plaintiff shall not without leave of the court use any information obtained as a result of this order or any other order of this court for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings in any other jurisdiction.