DLA Piper Secures Further Victory as Court Orders Former Solicitors to Deliver Documents

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed the judgement of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Court) in Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited (海峽石油化工控股有限公司) v Jun He Law Offices [2025] HKCFI 5281, where the Court ordered Jun He Law Offices (Jun He), the former solicitors of a Hong Kong listed company, Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited (海峽石油化工控股有限公司) (SPHL), to deliver up documents of SPHL in Jun He’s possession, custody, power or control.

In a subsequent decision of the Court in Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited (海峽石油化工控股有限公司) v Loeb & Loeb LLP [2025] HKCFI 617, the Court again ordered another former firm of solicitors of SPHL, Loeb & Loeb LLP (Loeb), to deliver up SPHL’s documents in Loeb’s possession, custody, power or control (Requested Documents).

The DLA Piper team representing SPHL is led by Harris Chan (Partner), assisted by Rita Chow (Senior Associate) and Sapphira Choi (Associate).

 

Background

Like Jun He, Loeb acted as SPHL’s legal adviser until January 2025. Pursuant to a court order dated 17 January 2025, SPHL convened an extraordinary general meeting on 25 January 2025 at which its previous management was removed. Following the change in management, SPHL made repeated requests for Loeb to deliver up documents relating to its affairs. Loeb declined to produce the requested documents on the following grounds:

1. Loeb surmised that SPHL was driven by ulterior motives (Ulterior Motives Argument);
2. Loeb indicated that in the course of its engagement the documents had already been provided to SPHL (Provided Documents Argument); and
3. Loeb said that since the engagement had been terminated, there was no longer such obligation (Termination Argument).

As a result, SPHL commenced these proceedings against Loeb. The application was originally objected to in its entirety by Loeb. Two days prior to the deadline for SPHL to file its skeleton submissions, Loeb had written by way of open offer stating that it was prepared to produce 234 items to SPHL. The letter did not confirm that the 234 documents comprised all of the documents sought. In their skeleton submissions, Loeb also took an additional point that the documents sought did not belong to SPHL (Ownership Argument).

 

The Requested Documents

All arguments advanced by Loeb were rejected:

A. The Ownership Argument

The legal principles to be applied on the issue of ownership diverged between SPHL and Loeb:

1. Loeb relied heavily on the case of Green v SGI Legal LLP [2017] EWHC B27 (Costs), essentially saying that once the documents in the various categories had been supplied during the currency of the engagement, then “it is not self-evident that the recipient can require another copy on demand, even on agreeing to pay for it”.
2. On the other hand, SPHL had referred to Ho On Mansion (IO) v Herman Hui & Co [2020] 3 HKLRD 18, being a case that cites and relies upon the leading Australian authority Wentworth v De Montfort (1988) 15 NSWLR 348, which stands for the proposition that documents belonging to the solicitor might nonetheless be inspected.

The Court considered that the principles articulated in Ho On are more nuanced, better aligned with applicable professional guidelines, and ultimately more persuasive. The Court therefore elected to follow the approach in Ho On. On that basis, the proper starting point is to examine the substance of the ownership issue:

1. For documents owned by the client, there is no reason why they should not be entitled to copies.
2. As to those which are not owned by the client, the court may wish to make an assessment of the reasonableness of the request, bearing in mind the overall approach that if the client is willing to pay and the documents speak to business that has been conducted on their behalf, then unless there is a good reason why inspection should be refused, it should nonetheless be ordered.

The Court found that SPHL clearly has ownership in the following documents:

1. Engagement/ Service contract signed between SPHL and Loeb
2. Advices provided by Loeb to SPHL and/or persons purporting to represent SPHL
3. Correspondence and/or submissions made by Loeb on behalf of SPHL to The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, together with their attachments

Even if Loeb were to take the technical position that the originals belonged to SPHL whereas the retained copies belonged to the firm, this does not undermine the obvious conclusion that these documents are plainly materials to which the client ought to be entitled to inspect and obtain information about, especially where the originals are no longer available.

As to the following categories of documents, while the Court acknowledged that there was some force in Loeb’s submission that they may not, strictly speaking, belong to SPHL, that point was far from determinative:

1. Bank transaction records and details for payments made by SPHL and/or persons purporting to represent SPHL to Loeb – these documents were analogous to the trust account records considered in Ho On.
2. Correspondence between Loeb and SPHL, any of SPHL's directors, and/or persons purporting to represent SPHL, together with their attachments – these were plainly created for SPHL’s benefit and contained information of which SPHL would reasonably expect to retain a record.

The Court therefore rejected Loeb’s ownership‑based objections. 

B. The Ulterior Motives Argument

Loeb had abandoned the Ulterior Motives Argument by the time of the hearing. In any event, the Court found that the argument was not made out. There was no basis to doubt SPHL’s motives in bringing the application, which arose from its inability to retrieve the requested documents internally and its legitimate need to reconstruct what had occurred and to obtain documents relating to its business.

C. The Provided Documents Argument

The Court held that the Provided Documents Argument was without merit and rejected it. Consistent with the approach in Ho On, the fact that certain documents may previously have been delivered does not preclude a client from subsequently requesting copies or originals from the solicitor’s file. 

D. The Termination Argument

The Court rejected the Termination Argument, holding that it could not be correct. As explained in Ho On, the termination of a solicitor’s engagement does not negate the obligation to deliver up or permit inspection of relevant client documents. 

 

Key Takeaways

The Court adopted a practical and principled approach that affirms clients’ continuing rights to access documents relating to their own affairs, even after a solicitor’s engagement has ended. By looking beyond formalistic ownership arguments, the Court reinforced that document handover should not be obstructed by technicalities where the documents concern work carried out for the client. The judgment recognises the legitimate need for companies – particularly following management or board changes – to reconstruct past actions and obtain a complete record of legal and regulatory engagement. The Court’s endorsement of the approach in Ho On provides welcome consistency and guidance for both clients and legal advisers on corporate disputes and post‑termination document obligations.

Judgment can be found here.