特定文件披露申請中誓章的決定性？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：IN THE MATTER of The Prudential Enterprise, Limited and IN THE MATTER of The Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 of the Laws of Hong Kong - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱芬齡法官 (Hon Chu J) - 判決日期：2001年8月10日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩項根據《高等法院規則》 (Rules of the High Court) 第24號命令第7條提出的特定文件披露 (specific discovery) 申請。呈請人尋求對The Prudential Enterprise, Limited（「該公司」）頒布清盤令 (winding-up order)，理由是公正公平原則 (just and equitable ground)，或根據《公司條例》 (Companies Ordinance) 第168A條尋求濟助。第一答辯人亦提出針對呈請人的特定文件披露申請。呈請人要求披露與Guernsey公司（Mount Eden Land Limited、Mount Cook Land Limited和Interstitial Holdings Limited）及1998年供股 (Rights Issue) 有關的文件。第一答辯人則要求披露與該公司成立、業務、廉政公署調查、董事辭職、1995年Blue Pool Road和解、供股、第一答辯人與呈請人之間的通訊以及該公司與Wyatt Estates Limited貸款相關的文件。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於呈請人及第一答辯人提出的特定文件披露申請是否應獲批准。主要爭論點包括：所要求的文件是否與訴訟事項相關 (relevant to the matters in question)；申請方是否有初步證據證明對方持有或曾經持有這些文件；以及對方就文件存在或持有權所作的誓章陳述是否具決定性 (conclusive)。呈請人質疑第一答辯人就離岸公司文件持有權的陳述，認為其辭職是為阻撓披露。第一答辯人則認為已充分遵守披露要求。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi) 時，首先總結了《高等法院規則》第24號命令第7條適用於特定文件披露申請的原則。法官指出，申請方必須以誓章證據證明所要求的文件與爭議事項相關，且對方持有或曾持有這些文件。在中間階段 (interlocutory stage)，答辯誓章的內容是具決定性的，除非其本身不足或與訴訟中其他承認事項矛盾。法官強調，法院不應在中間階段對事實爭議（例如第一答辯人是否控制離岸公司）作出預先判斷，以免影響清盤呈請的實質審理。因此，即使第一答辯人的陳述存在矛盾，法院仍接受其誓章為具決定性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述特定文件披露的原則： - Innovisions Ltd v. Chan Sing Chuk & Ors [1992] 1 HKC 348：區分《高等法院規則》第24號命令下不同規則的適用範圍。 - Jones v. Monte Video Co. (1880) 5 QBD 556：確立了誓章在中間階段的決定性原則，以及不能以爭議性誓章推翻的規則。 - John Baptist Wu v. Tsoi Kay & Anor. (unreported) HCA 4983/1987：採納了Jones v. Monte Video Co.的原則。 - Lonrho Ltd v. Shell Petroleum [1980] 1WLR 627：界定了「權力」 (power) 範圍內文件的含義。 - B v. B [1978] Fam. 18：討論了公司作為個人「另我」 (alter ego) 時對公司文件的控制權。 ### 裁決與命令 呈請人提出的特定文件披露申請被駁回。第一答辯人提出的特定文件披露申請，除針對第七呈請人部分外，亦被駁回。針對第七呈請人的申請則無限期押後，並可恢復。訟費命令為「訟費在訴訟中處理」 (costs to be in the cause)，但第一答辯人與第七呈請人之間的訟費則保留。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了在特定文件披露申請中，答辯方就文件持有權所作的誓章在中間階段的決定性。法院強調，在處理此類申請時，應避免對訴訟實質爭議作出預先判斷，即使存在表面矛盾。這對日後涉及複雜事實爭議的披露申請具有指導意義，提醒各方在中間階段的誓章陳述的重要性及其限制。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: IN THE MATTER of The Prudential Enterprise, Limited and IN THE MATTER of The Companies Ordinance, Cap.32 of the Laws of Hong Kong - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu J - Date of Judgment: 10 August 2001 ### Factual Background This case involves two applications for specific discovery made under Order 24, rule 7 of the Rules of the High Court. The petitioners sought a winding-up order against The Prudential Enterprise, Limited ("the Company") on just and equitable grounds, or alternatively, relief under section 168A of the Companies Ordinance. The 1st respondent also filed specific discovery applications against the petitioners. The petitioners requested documents related to Guernsey Companies (Mount Eden Land Limited, Mount Cook Land Limited, and Interstitial Holdings Limited) and a Rights Issue in October 1998. The 1st respondent sought documents concerning the Company's formation, business, an ICAC investigation, directors' resignations, the 1995 Blue Pool Road Settlement, the Rights Issue, communications between the 1st respondent and petitioners, and the Company's loan to Wyatt Estates Limited. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the specific discovery applications by both the petitioners and the 1st respondent should be granted. Key arguments revolved around: the relevance of the requested documents to the matters in question; whether the applying party had a prima facie case that the other party had or had had possession of the documents; and the conclusiveness of the other party's affidavit statements regarding the existence or possession of documents. The petitioners challenged the 1st respondent's assertions about his control over offshore company documents, suggesting his resignations were an attempt to thwart discovery. The 1st respondent argued that he had sufficiently complied with discovery requests. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, in analyzing the ratio decidendi, summarized the principles applicable to Order 24, rule 7 applications. The judge stated that the applying party must prove by affidavit evidence that the documents are relevant to the issues and that the other party has or has had them in their possession, custody, or power. At the interlocutory stage, the answering affidavit is conclusive, unless it is insufficient on its face or contradicted by admissions in the proceedings. The judge emphasized that the court should not conduct a mini-trial or pre-judge substantive issues (such as whether the 1st respondent controlled the offshore companies) at the interlocutory stage of discovery. Therefore, despite apparent contradictions in the 1st respondent's statements, his affidavit was accepted as conclusive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to elaborate on the principles of specific discovery: - Innovisions Ltd v. Chan Sing Chuk & Ors [1992] 1 HKC 348: Distinguished the scope of different rules under Order 24. - Jones v. Monte Video Co. (1880) 5 QBD 556: Established the principle of conclusiveness of affidavits at the interlocutory stage and that they cannot be controverted by contentious affidavits. - John Baptist Wu v. Tsoi Kay & Anor. (unreported) HCA 4983/1987: Adopted the principles from Jones v. Monte Video Co. - Lonrho Ltd v. Shell Petroleum [1980] 1WLR 627: Defined what constitutes documents within a person's "power." - B v. B [1978] Fam. 18: Discussed control over company documents when the company is an "alter ego." ### Decision & Orders The petitioners' application for specific discovery was dismissed. The 1st respondent's applications for specific discovery, save for those against the 7th petitioner, were also dismissed. The 1st respondent's applications against the 7th petitioner were adjourned sine die with liberty to restore. The costs order was that costs be in the cause, except for the costs between the 1st respondent and the 7th petitioner, which were reserved. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the conclusiveness of an answering affidavit regarding document possession at the interlocutory stage of specific discovery applications. The court emphasized that it should avoid pre-judging substantive issues of the main action during discovery, even when apparent contradictions exist in affidavit evidence. This provides guidance for future discovery applications involving complex factual disputes, highlighting the importance and limitations of affidavit statements at the interlocutory stage. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.