Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Joe Zhixiong Zhou v Saif Partners Ii L.p. And Another

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date09 September 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFI 2467
Judgement NumberHCCL16/2016
Subject MatterCommercial Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCCL16E/2016 JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

HCCL 16/2016

[2019] HKCFI 2467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMMERCIAL ACTION NO 16 OF 2016

(Transferred from High Court Action No 1551 of 2010)

____________

BETWEEN

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU Plaintiff
and
SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. 1st Defendant
SAIF II GP CAPITAL LIMITED 2nd Defendant

____________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 9 September 2019
Date of Decision: 9 September 2019

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This application is based primarily on Order 45, rule 6 of the Rules of High Court, seeking an order that the Plaintiff do comply with an Order dated 26 June 2018 under which he is obliged to provide an account ordered in a judgment dated 14 February 2018.

2. The Defendants say that there has been deliberate non-compliance by the Plaintiff of the Order and that by this application he be given a last chance to properly comply with the same.

3. It is somewhat ironic that the Plaintiff is maintaining the stance that he has fully complied with the Order and he is resisting this application vigorously. I have to say that in this situation, where the alleged infringer steadfastly declines a second chance, and that there is no suggestion that the terms of the Order are unclear, it is difficult to see why the court should exercise its discretion to impose a second chance on him.

4. With respect, I am inclined to the view that the precious resources of the court should be expended on either contempt proceedings against the Plaintiff or in the taking of the account where it will be open to the Defendants to cross-examine the Plaintiff and to adduce evidence to falsify the account put forward by him. Indeed, the procedure for the accounting exercise had been comprehensively provided for in the Order.

5. I have a great deal of reservation whether the jurisdiction under Order 45, rule 6 is meant for a case where the respondent had steadfastly refused to comply with the court order. There seems to be no reason to believe that making another order in largely the same terms as the existing one by this court would produce a positive result for the Defendants.

6. The Defendants rely...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT