Saif Partners Ii L.p. Andvanother v Joe Zhixiong Zhou

Judgment Date23 April 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 574
Judgement NumberCACV625/2020
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CAMP231/2020 JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

CAMP 231/2020 & CACV 625/2020

[2021] HKCA 574

CAMP 231/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 231 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCCL NO. 16 OF 2016)

________________________

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

________________________

CACV 625/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 208 OF 2020)

________________________

IN THE MATTER OF an application by SAIF Partners II L.P. and SAIF II GP Capital Limited against Joe Zhixiong Zhou for Orders of Committal

________________________

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

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Decision : 23 April 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Application for leave to appeal and stay

CAMP 231/2020

1.1 On 5 February 2020 Deputy High Court Judge Field (‘Judge Field’) in HCMP 208/2020 granted leave to the defendants to commence contempt proceedings against the plaintiff for non‑compliance of an order for disclosure dated 26 June 2018 (sealed on 28 March 2019) (‘Disclosure Order’) under which the plaintiff is required to provide an account ordered by Judge Field on 14 February 2018 (‘Account Order’). Judge Field on 5 February 2020 also ordered personal service of the Disclosure Order on the plaintiff who lives in the USA be dispensed with (‘the Dispensing Order’). Contempt proceedings have since been commenced against the plaintiff on 10 March 2020.

1.2 On 17 September 2020 Anthony Chan J refused the plaintiff’s application to set aside Judge Field’s orders of 5 February 2020. Anthony Chan J on 20 November 2020 also refused to grant leave to the plaintiff to appeal and stay the proceedings pending appeal. The plaintiff now renews his applications for leave to appeal and stay before us which we will deal with on paper.

CACV 625/2020

1.3 The plaintiff also applies before us for a stay of the contempt proceedings pending the appeal (CACV 625/2020) against another order of Anthony Chan J dated 17 September 2020 by which he refused to set aside his order dated 4 June 2020 where he granted substituted service of the originating summons in HCMP 208/2020 on the plaintiff’s Hong Kong solicitors. The appeal is pursuant to leave granted by Anthony Chan J on 20 November 2020.

II. Leave to appeal

Grounds of appeal

2.1 Seven grounds of appeal are relied upon by the plaintiff and they are summarised as follows :

2.2 Anthony Chan J erred in law, misdirected himself and acted in disregard of principles when he erroneously concluded that the defendants’ ex parte case for committal was not deficient and unsustainable for lack of asserted grounds for committal and a prima facie case. (Ground 1)

2.3 Anthony Chan J erred in law, misdirected himself and acted in disregard of principles by disregarding the evidence before him which showed that there was no proper basis for a committal order in that the plaintiff had prima facie complied with the Account Order and Disclosure Order. The statement filed in support of the application for leave to commence contempt proceedings did not identify any alleged undisclosed income and undisclosed document. (Grounds 2(1) and (2))

2.4 The defendants had already invoked alternative powers of the Court and the committal proceedings are unnecessary. (Ground 2(3))

2.5 The Disclosure Order was ambiguous and there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s understanding of the order was incorrect or had deliberately or contumeliously breached the order. (Ground 2(4))

2.6 Anthony Chan J erred in law in concluding that the evidence before him showed beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff knew the terms of the Disclosure Order and the consequences for disobedience. (Ground 3)

2.7 Material non‑disclosure. (Grounds 4, 5 and 6)

2.8 Anthony Chan J erred in...

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