LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS

LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS

The judge refused to discharge the ex parte injunction at the interim stage because, even accepting the respondents' point on the legal basis of the EGM notice, other substantial disputed matters and the need to preserve the status quo justified continuing the injunction pending a fuller hearing; there was no real prejudice to respondents from short continuance and the alleged non-disclosure by petitioners' solicitors was likely innocent and for the substantive judge to decide.

Citation
LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Petitioner: LAU CHI YAN ROGER; 2nd Petitioner: KO HUNG CHUN; 3rd Petitioner: CHENG CHUNG MAN; 4th Petitioner: LEE YICK MO OWEN; 5th Petitioner: CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD; 1st Respondent: TUNG KA HUNG; 2nd Respondent: WONG CHI SANG NAVIS; 3rd Respondent: LI TAK YAN; 4th Respondent: KWOK WAI YI; 5th Respondent: HO HOI TUNG; 6th Respondent: NG KAI YAN; 7th Respondent: CHUI WAI LEUNG; 8th Respondent: WATERMARK GROUP LTD; 9th Respondent: RICH RIDER LTD; 10th Respondent: INCORPORATED NOMINEES; 11th Respondent: GRAND SKY HOLDINGS LIMITED; 12th Respondent: GRAND WORLD TECHNOLOGY LTD; 13th Respondent: GRAND BOND (ASIA) LIMITED; 14th Respondent: ROCKENT ELECTRONICS LIMITED; 15th Respondent: CHANCE STAR LIMITED; 16th Respondent: CYBERONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD; 17th Respondent: BONDWAY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 18th Respondent: RATONAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 19th Respondent: KARSON CIRCUITS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2002
Case Number
HCCW1097/2002
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up / Return Day of Ex Parte Injunction; Directions Hearing
Outcome
Ex parte injunction continued pending hearing; directions for filing of evidence given; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Companies Ordinance S.113, Companies Ordinance S.114 A(1)(b), Ex Parte Injunction, Material Non Disclosure, Preservation of Status Quo, Directors Rights
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Companies Ordinance S.113 Companies Ordinance S.114 A(1)(b) Ex Parte Injunction Material Non Disclosure Preservation of Status Quo +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU CHI YAN ROGER

1st Petitioner

KO HUNG CHUN

2nd Petitioner

CHENG CHUNG MAN

3rd Petitioner

LEE YICK MO OWEN

4th Petitioner

CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD

5th Petitioner

TUNG KA HUNG

1st Respondent

WONG CHI SANG NAVIS

2nd Respondent

LI TAK YAN

3rd Respondent

KWOK WAI YI

4th Respondent

HO HOI TUNG

5th Respondent

NG KAI YAN

6th Respondent

CHUI WAI LEUNG

7th Respondent

WATERMARK GROUP LTD

8th Respondent

RICH RIDER LTD

9th Respondent

INCORPORATED NOMINEES

10th Respondent

GRAND SKY HOLDINGS LIMITED

11th Respondent

GRAND WORLD TECHNOLOGY LTD

12th Respondent

GRAND BOND (ASIA) LIMITED

13th Respondent

ROCKENT ELECTRONICS LIMITED

14th Respondent

CHANCE STAR LIMITED

15th Respondent

CYBERONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD

16th Respondent

BONDWAY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

17th Respondent

RATONAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

18th Respondent

KARSON CIRCUITS LTD

19th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up / Return Day of Ex Parte Injunction; Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ex parte injunction should be discharged for alleged material non-disclosure or misapprehension
  2. 2 Whether the EGM notice was irregular under s.113 or valid under s.114A(1)(b) of the Companies Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether to continue the injunction pending filing of further evidence and full hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused to discharge the ex parte injunction at the interim stage because, even accepting the respondents' point on the legal basis of the EGM notice, other substantial disputed matters and the need to preserve the status quo justified continuing the injunction pending a fuller hearing; there was no real prejudice to respondents from short continuance and the alleged non-disclosure by petitioners' solicitors was likely innocent and for the substantive judge to decide.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction continued pending hearing; directions for filing of evidence given; costs reserved

Orders

  • Leave granted to 1st and 5th Petitioners to file and serve evidence in reply by 4:00 p.m. on 21 October 2002
  • Hearing of the summons of the two Petitioners adjourned to 25 October 2002 at 10:00 a.m. before the summons judge