NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCCW000321A/1996

HCCW321/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 321 of 1996

____________

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 168A and 177(1)(f) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32

and

IN THE MATTER of Max Share Limited

BETWEEN
NG YAT CHI Petitioner
AND
MAX SHARE LIMITED

CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

____________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 8 February 1999

Date of delivery of Ruling: 8 February 1999

____________

R U L I N G

____________

1. This is an application for an unless order on the part of the Petitioner that unless certain documents are produced the affidavitsof the Respondents be struck out. This application has been made in a case where the affidavits have been ordered to stand as evidence.

2. The Petitioner made the first request for these documents on 12th January 1999. This was at a time when the accounting expert forthe Respondents, Mr. Best, was away from Hong Kong. He did not return to Hong Kong until 26th January but this summons had alreadybeen issued on 25th January. Indeed, Miss Dicks for the Respondents informed the court that the Respondents’ solicitors were unableto contact Mr. Best until 29th January 1999, so that accounts for a substantial period of the time that has elapsed.

3. There is apparently a dispute between the parties as to what documents should be disclosed as having been referred to in the affidavits,and the Respondents’ solicitors say that time is necessary to classify them because the documents run into the thousands, and includeindividual entries in the accounting documents.

4. I am persuaded that this is not a case where an Order 24 Rule 10 notice can be issued within the time set out in Order 24 Rule 10(2), and Mr. Yip appearing for the Petitioner accepts that the Court does have jurisdiction to extend time for the issue of that notice.

5. The Respondents’ solicitors have now suggested that they would produce those documents to which there is no objection by 15th February1999, and they would also by that date issue the Order 24 Rule 10 notice so as to indicate what documents they have objection to providing.

6. It seems to me that, in all the circumstances referred to above, that is acceptable. Therefore, I would adjourn the hearing of thissummons until a date after 15th February 1999. In relation to costs, I shall hear the parties now.

(MARIA YUEN)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr. Simon Yip inst’d by M/s Ho, Lo & Yeung for Petitioner

Ms. Karen Dicks of M/s Kao, Lee & Yip for 1st & 2nd Respondents