WONG LAM YUK v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 237/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 237 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1.  This is the application of Wong Lam Tuk (“P”)  for Norwich Pharmacal relief against Hang Seng Bank Limited (“HSB”), The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”)  and Bank of China (Hong Kong)  Limited (“BOC”)  (collectively, the “Defendants”).

Factual background

2.  P is the only child of the late Wong Kwai Shui (the “Deceased”)  who died on 6 July 2015, intestate.

3.  During his lifetime, the Deceased owned 2 companies in Mainland China called 金科龙软件科技 (深圳)  有限公司(the “Shenzhen Company”)  and 金科龙软件科技 (武汉)  有限公司 (the “Wuhan Company”)  respectively. As to these companies:

(i)  According to the Shenzhen Company’s Capital Contribution Report dated 24 January 2003, by that date the Deceased had injected into it a total of HKD 4.5 million.

(ii)  The Shenzhen Company owned a substantial business in the research, development, sale and provision of telecommunications and networking equipment and solutions. Its audited financial reports for 2015 (the year Deceased died)  shows that in that year in excess of RMB 94 million.

(iii)  The Wuhan Company’s Capital Contribution Report dated 19 March 2012 shows that by 12 March 2012, the Deceased had injected a total of USD 3 million into the Wuhan Company.

(iv)  The Wuhan Company develops software which drives the hardware products developed and sold by the Shenzhen Company. Its annual revenue for 2015 was in excess of RMB 3 million.

4.  The Deceased’s widow Wong Nga Fong (“Madam Wong”)  obtained a grant of letters of administration on 12 November 2015 (the “Grant”). The Schedule of Assets (“Schedule”)  attached to the Grant shows that the Deceased

(i)  maintained a bank account with HSB with a balance of HKD 10,000 and 3 accounts with BOC with an aggregate balance of HKD 16,300; and

(ii)  owned

(a)  50% of the Hong Kong company called “Gold Dragon Technologies Limited” (insert Chinese name)  (the “Gold Dragon”); and

(b)  100% of Tim Fat Industrial Company Limited.

5.  To P’s knowledge, Gold Dragon ceased to have any substantive business for many years prior to the 2015 but has been acting as an order and payment channel between the Shenzhen Company and its Hong Kong and overseas purchasers and suppliers.

6.  P, as the only child in the family, was aware that her parents were owners of successful businesses in the PRC and Hong Kong and has a general understanding of the financial status of her family. She finds it highly unlikely that a successful businessman such as the Deceased would have no more than HKD 26,300 in his bank accounts on the date of his death. Her suspicion is heightened by the fact that the balances appear to have been artificially rounded to the nearest $100 (or $1000 or $10,000 as the case may be).

7.  To her knowledge, in addition to the Mainland Companies, the Deceased owned a number of landed properties in Mainland China, namely, 2 residential properties in Shenzhen of about 140 m² and 120 m² respectively as well as a commercial property of about 1412 m².

8.  On 14 October 2018, Madam Wong amended the balances of the HSB accounts shown in the Schedule but the new balances remain de minimis.

9.  It is P’s belief that Madam Wong has substantially understated the Deceased’s assets:

(i)  According to the Schedule, the Deceased only had de minimis cash assets in his bank account at the date of his death but in 2018, P witnessed Madam Wong transferring more than HKD 1.4 million from the Deceased’s bank accounts to some other Hong Kong bank accounts including Madam Wong’s own account. As stated in the Schedule, the Deceased had no liabilities at the date of his death. The purpose of the transfers is not evident, there being no outstanding liabilities of the Deceased’s death.

(ii)  The Deceased maintained an account with HSBC during his lifetime, evidenced by 4 cheques issued by HSBC and signed by the Deceased in 2009 and 2010 but that account is not mentioned in the Schedule.

10.  Despite 9 years having elapsed since the date of the Grant, P, who is unquestionably a beneficiary, has yet to receive any distribution of cash assets or shares in companies owned by the Deceased that form part of the Estate.

11.  P does not know

(i)  the balances in the bank accounts of the Deceased as at the date of his death;

(ii)  the transactions that have taken place from the date of the Deceased’s death to date;

(iii)  the details of any transfers made from the Deceased’s accounts, such as their dates and time and recipients of the same so as to consider whether such transfers were proper or justified; and

(iv)  how the Deceased’s bank accounts have otherwise been used since the date of his death in order to properly construct an account of Madam Wong’s use of the assets of the Deceased, and if so advised, to commence a claim against Madam Wong.

12.  In the absence of such knowledge, P is unable to formulate her claims against Madam Wong with sufficient precision.

Applicable legal principles

13.  In A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111 at §13[1], Ma J (as he then was)  highlighted the matters the Court must bear in mind when making a Norwich Pharmacal order:

“(1)  There must be cogent and compelling evidence to demonstrate that serious tortious or wrongful activities have taken place. And where fraud or similar serious allegations are made, the degree of proof must correspondingly be high. All the more so when the alleged wrongdoer is not and will not likely be before the court.

(2)  It must also be clearly demonstrated that the order will or will very likely reap substantial and worthwhile benefits for the plaintiff. Where, as in the present case, the plaintiff is likely to make a tracing claim, there must be a serious possibility that the discovery sought must either allow the plaintiff to preserve what may well be his assets or realistically lead to the discovery of such assets.

(3)  The discovery sought must not be unduly wide. There is no entitlement to general discovery. It follows therefore that not only must any order be specific, it must also be restricted to those or those classes of documents that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to preserve or discover assets. This is not to say that discovery orders cannot be wide; what is important is that the discovery, whether wide or narrow, is necessary.”

14.  Norwich Pharmacal relief is not confined to the identification of the wrongdoer but extends to the discovery of other information that will enable the person who claims to have been wronged to protect his interests. In an appropriate case, where it is necessary in the interests of justice, Norwich Pharmacal discovery can be obtained, not on the basis of an actual tort, but to find out if a wrong had been committed against the applicant and if so, the precise nature of the wrong: see Evergreen International Storage & Transportation Corp v The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited & Anor [2008] 5 HKLRD 49 at §§33 and 60.

Disposition

15.  On the evidence presented, I am satisfied that a wrong has been committed against P. There is a prima facie case that Madam Wong has concealed assets of the Deceased, transferred away Estate assets, failed to administer the Estate properly and to make distributions of the Estate to which P is entitled. There is also no ostensible reason why administration of the Estate is still ongoing after more than 9 years since the Grant.

16.  This case cries out for Norwich Pharmacal relief.

17.  The Defendants are absent and adopt a neutral stance. P seeks information and documents such as bank balances, bank statements, and details of transactions carried out through the banks. That information would reveal the present status of the accounts, the initial balance of the cash assets of the Estate which would reveal whether there was an understatement of the Estate’s assets as well as details of outgoing transfers made by Madam Wong in 2018.

18.  HSB and BOC have stated that they may not be able to disclose documents more than 7 years ago. P has accepted all their comments on the terms of the draft Orders. The draft Orders submitted on 27 March 2025 require that the Defendants shall only disclose documents to the extent that they are in the possession, power or custody of the Defendant.

19.  Each of the Orders contains the usual undertaking to pay the costs of the Defendant in complying with the Order on an indemnity basis.

20.  Given that P intends to use the documents disclosed by the Defendants for her intended claims against Madam Wong, leave is granted to P to so use such documents, notwithstanding the implied undertaking not to use disclosed documents for collateral use.