|
HCMP 1074/2024
[2025] HKCFI 3616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1074 OF 2024
____________
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Plaintiff for Orders for Committal in respect of each of the 3 Defendants
|
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
CMBICDHAW INVESTMENTS LTD
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
LI LEI(李磊)
|
1
st
Defendant
|
|
|
XIONG FEI(熊飛)
|
2
nd
Defendant
|
|
|
CDH INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) LIMITED
|
3
rd
Defendant
|
____________
|
Before:
|
Hon Cheng J in Chambers
|
|
Dates of Hearing:
|
13 May and 24 June 2025
|
|
Date of Decision:
|
13 August 2025
|
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
A. INTRODUCTION
1.
By summons of 21st March 2025 (as amended on 2nd April 2025) (“
the Defendants’ Summons
”), the Defendants seek to expunge certain paragraphs of, and exhibits to, the Affirmation of Henry Qiu Han Rong (“
Qiu’s Affirmation
”), on the grounds that they are outside the scope of the Amended Contempt Statement filed on 4th June 2024 and/or are irrelevant, scandalous and/or oppressive. This summons was heard on 13th May 2025.
2.
After the hearing of the Defendants’ Summons had been fixed, the Plaintiff issued a summons on 25th April 2025 (“
the Plaintiff’s Summons
”), seeking to expunge certain paragraphs of, and exhibits to, the Affirmation of Li Lei of 4th October 2024 (“
Li’s Affirmation
”) and the Affirmation of Xiong Fei of 3rd October 2024 (“
Xiong’s Affirmation
”), on the grounds that they relitigate decided issues, constitute impermissible hearsay, are irrelevant, or are impermissible self‑serving statements. There was debate between the parties as to whether this summons could, or should, be heard at the hearing fixed solely for the Defendants’ Summons. In the event, the Plaintiff’s Summons was heard on 24th June 2025.
B. THE BACKGROUND
B1. The Main Action
3.
The present proceedings are an application by the Plaintiff to commit the Defendants for contempt of court in breaching orders relating to discovery in HCA 905/2020 (“
the Main Action
”).
4.
I have set out the background to the parties’ dispute in my decision of 31st August 2023 in the Main Action (
[2023] HKCFI 2176
) (“
the 31.08.2023 Decision
”) relating to the Plaintiff’s application to enter judgment and the Defendants’ application for relief from sanctions. I recap some of the points here as follows.
5.
In the Main Action, the Plaintiff sues the Defendants and a Mr Chen (who is a party in the Main Action but not in the contempt proceedings) for fraudulent misrepresentation. The parties to the Main Action are as follows.
5.1 The Plaintiff is the corporate vehicle of Mr Henry Qiu, a beneficial owner and director.
5.2 The 3rd Defendant (namely, the 4th Defendant in the Main Action) is part of a priva
| 
Back
