TANG KAN YIP v. TANG LIK YUEN

TANG KAN YIP v. TANG LIK YUEN

The court refused both the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions because the Defendant has a real and arguable chance of success at trial on the validity of the meetings and removal; mandatory relief requires a higher standard which was not met, and on balance of convenience the injunctions should not be granted.

Citation
TANG KAN YIP v. TANG LIK YUEN
Parties
Plaintiff (manager of Tso): TANG KAN YIP as Manager of Tang Sung Kok Tso (also known as Tang Shung Kok Tso); Defendant (duty Manager): TANG LIK YUEN (also known as Tang Wing Yuen)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 May 2006
Case Number
DCCJ841/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Injunction Application (conversion/detinue/trespass; Removal of Duty Manager) / Interlocutory Application (amended Summons Under Order 29 R.1 and S52 Dcco)
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed; interlocutory injunctions refused
Legal Topics
Conversion, Detinue, Trespass, Removal of Manager, Meetings and Notice, Natural Justice, Mandatory Injunction Test, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Equity Trusts Injunctions Company/clan Governance (tso) Conversion Detinue +6 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANG KAN YIP as Manager of Tang Sung Kok Tso (also known as Tang Shung Kok Tso)

Plaintiff (manager of Tso)

TANG LIK YUEN (also known as Tang Wing Yuen)

Defendant (duty Manager)

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Injunction Application (conversion/detinue/trespass; Removal of Duty Manager) / Interlocutory Application (amended Summons Under Order 29 R.1 and S52 Dcco)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 22 January 2006 members meeting was validly convened and validly removed the Defendant as Duty Manager
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is liable for conversion/detinue and trespass in relation to the Tso's documents and chattels
  3. 3 Whether a mandatory interlocutory injunction compelling return of property should be granted given the higher threshold

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused both the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions because the Defendant has a real and arguable chance of success at trial on the validity of the meetings and removal; mandatory relief requires a higher standard which was not met, and on balance of convenience the injunctions should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed; interlocutory injunctions refused

Orders

  • Amended Summons re-filed 8 March 2006 dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs in the cause to be taxed if not agreed with Certificate for Counsel