Skip to main content

Case information

Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.


36482

Luu Hung Viet Derrick, et al. v. Wong Tak Man Stephen, et al.

(British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave)

Docket

Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.

List of proceedings
Date Proceeding Filed By
(if applicable)
2016-02-02 Close file on Leave
2016-01-29 Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties
2016-01-29 Judgment on leave sent to the parties
2016-01-28 Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA041106, 2015 BCCA 159, dated April 21, 2015, is dismissed with costs.
Dismissed, with costs
2015-12-21 All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, CJ Mo Ga
2015-08-20 Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2015-08-20 Luu Hung Viet Derrick
2015-08-13 Certificate (on limitations to public access) Wong Tak Man Stephen
2015-08-13 Book of authorities, (Book Form) Wong Tak Man Stephen
2015-08-13 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2015-08-13 Wong Tak Man Stephen
2015-06-17 Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal, Filed opened on June17, 2015
2015-06-17 Certificate (on limitations to public access) Luu Hung Viet Derrick
2015-06-17 Notice of name Luu Hung Viet Derrick
2015-06-17 Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-06-17 Luu Hung Viet Derrick

Parties

Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.

Main parties

Main parties - Appellants
Name Role Status
Derrick, Luu Hung Viet Applicant Active
Murray Jamieson Applicant Active

v.

Main parties - Respondents
Name Role Status
Stephen, Wong Tak Man Respondent Active
Arab, Osman Mohammed Respondent Active

Counsel

Party: Derrick, Luu Hung Viet

Counsel
Eugene Meehan, Q.C.
Thomas Slade
Supreme Advocacy LLP
100 - 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 101
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca
Agent
Marie-France Major
Supreme Advocacy LLP
100- 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca

Party: Murray Jamieson

Counsel
Eugene Meehan, Q.C.
Thomas Slade
Supreme Advocacy LLP
100 - 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 101
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca
Agent
Marie-France Major
Supreme Advocacy LLP
100- 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca

Party: Stephen, Wong Tak Man

Counsel
Tevia R.M. Jeffries
Dentons Canada LLP
20th Floor, 250 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6C 3R8
Telephone: (604) 691-6427
FAX: (604) 683-5214
Email: tevia.jeffries@dentons.com
Agent
K. Scott McLean
Dentons Canada LLP
1420 - 99 Bank Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1H4
Telephone: (613) 783-9600
FAX: (613) 783-9690
Email: scott.mclean@dentons.com

Party: Arab, Osman Mohammed

Counsel
Tevia R.M. Jeffries
Scott McLean
Dentons Canada LLP
20th Floor, 250 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6C 3R8
Telephone: (604) 691-6427
FAX: (604) 683-5214
Email: tevia.jeffries@dentons.com
Agent
K. Scott McLean
Dentons Canada LLP
1420 - 99 Bank Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1H4
Telephone: (613) 783-9600
FAX: (613) 783-9690
Email: scott.mclean@dentons.com

Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Law of professions – Barristers and solicitors – Solicitor-client privilege – Foreign bankruptcy Trustees seeking disclosure of information from bankrupt’s Canadian law firm – After Maranda, does the distinction between evidence of communications and evidence of facts continue to apply in the privilege analysis? – Is all information possessed by a lawyer flowing from the relationship between solicitor and client presumptively privileged? – Are law firm’s trust ledgers presumptively privileged? – To what extent do parties seeking access to lawyers’ files have to exhaust other avenues of obtaining that information?

The applicant, Mr. Luu, was petitioned into bankruptcy in Hong Kong in February, 2012. He was also involved in litigation in British Columbia and was represented by Murray Jamieson LLP. The respondents were appointed Trustees in the Hong Kong bankruptcy proceedings. In April 2012, Mr. Luu made a solemn affirmation in the bankruptcy proceedings that his assets had a value of $7.15 million. In February, 2013, the Trustees became aware that Mr. Luu had been awarded judgment in excess of US$3 million in the British Columbia action. The Trustees contacted the law firms representing the defendants, advised them of Mr. Luu’s Hong Kong bankruptcy and learned that the law firms had paid the judgment award into the Murray Jamieson trust account, by way of three payments in August and September, 2011 and June, 2012. The Trustees then contacted Murray Jamieson to determine, inter alia, whether the law firm continued to hold any of those monies in their trust account on behalf of Mr. Luu. Murray Jamieson refused to divulge any information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. The Trustees sought an order requiring the firm to disclose accounting information relating to Mr. Luu.

Lower court rulings

July 31, 2013
Supreme Court of British Columbia

S132185, 2013 BCSC 1374

Motion to have certain information disclosed to Trustees by bankrupt and his law firm, granted in part. Law firm required to disclose records showing movement of money in and out of trust fund

April 21, 2015
Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver)

CA041106, 2015 BCCA 159

Applicant’s appeal dismissed

Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal

The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Factums on appeal

The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Webcasts

Not available.

Date modified: 2025-02-27