LO FONG HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WU YANG AND OTHERS

LO FONG HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WU YANG AND OTHERS

The judge found it was not plain and obvious that the attacked actions or pleadings would fail given the complexity and potential need for oral evidence; accordingly the strike out and stay applications were not granted, the Rectification Proceedings were ordered to be heard with the unfair prejudice petition, a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LO FONG HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WU YANG AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Respondents: 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents (New Bright parties); Respondent: 4th respondent; Respondents: 1st, 7th and 8th respondents; Company: Dayuan International Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Case Number
HCMP2456/2015
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition (hccw 103/2015) and Related Rectification Proceedings (hca 2295/2015, HCMP 2934/2015, HCMP 2456/2015) / Case Management / Directions Hearing (19 July 2016)
Outcome
Strike out and stay applications refused or left undecided for summary dismissal; Rectification Proceedings to be heard with the unfair prejudice Petition; case management directions and costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Rectification of Share Register, Strike Out Applications, Stay Application, Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Rectification of Share Register Strike Out Applications Stay Application Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents (New Bright parties)

Respondents

4th respondent

Respondent

1st, 7th and 8th respondents

Respondents

Dayuan International Development Limited

Company

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition (hccw 103/2015) and Related Rectification Proceedings (hca 2295/2015, HCMP 2934/2015, HCMP 2456/2015) / Case Management / Directions Hearing (19 July 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of defence and related proceedings should be struck out under the 'plain and obvious' test
  2. 2 Whether the unfair prejudice petition should be stayed pending determination of rectification proceedings
  3. 3 Whether liability issues should be split for separate trials

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found it was not plain and obvious that the attacked actions or pleadings would fail given the complexity and potential need for oral evidence; accordingly the strike out and stay applications were not granted, the Rectification Proceedings were ordered to be heard with the unfair prejudice petition, a detailed timetable and trial dates were set, and the costs of interlocutory applications were allocated as directed.

Court Disposition

Strike out and stay applications refused or left undecided for summary dismissal; Rectification Proceedings to be heard with the unfair prejudice Petition; case management directions and costs orders made.

Orders

  • The Rectification Proceedings be heard with the Petition.
  • No order on the New Bright Parties' summons to stay the Petition.