LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS

LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS

The originating summons was issued prematurely because the plaintiffs and their solicitors misunderstood the scope of directors' inspection rights, seeking copies and compilation rather than inspection; accordingly plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs of the originating summons and must pay the 8th defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN; 2nd Plaintiff: LEE SO FONG SUSAN; 1st Defendant: TOM LEE MUSIC COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: HAVEN GREEN LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: TOM LEE MUSIC FOUNDATION LIMITED; 4th Defendant: ACTION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED; 5th Defendant: TOM LEE ENGINEERING LIMITED; 6th Defendant: HIN LEE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED; 7th Defendant: LEE KING SHING HENRY; 8th Defendant: NG KIT YEE KATHERINE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2014
Case Number
HCMP2417/2012
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Companies Ordinance, Cap 32 and Inherent Jurisdiction / Decision on Costs Following Discontinuance After Removal of Plaintiffs as Directors
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the originating summons; Plaintiffs ordered to pay the 8th Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Directors' Right of Inspection, Section 121 Companies Ordinance, Inspection Vs Production of Copies, Costs Indemnity and Party and Party, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Directors' Right of Inspection Section 121 Companies Ordinance Inspection Vs Production of Copies Costs Indemnity and Party and Party Inherent Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN

1st Plaintiff

LEE SO FONG SUSAN

2nd Plaintiff

TOM LEE MUSIC COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

HAVEN GREEN LIMITED

2nd Defendant

TOM LEE MUSIC FOUNDATION LIMITED

3rd Defendant

ACTION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED

4th Defendant

TOM LEE ENGINEERING LIMITED

5th Defendant

HIN LEE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

6th Defendant

LEE KING SHING HENRY

7th Defendant

NG KIT YEE KATHERINE

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Companies Ordinance, Cap 32 and Inherent Jurisdiction / Decision on Costs Following Discontinuance After Removal of Plaintiffs as Directors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the originating summons seeking directors' access to documents was properly commenced
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the originating summons
  3. 3 Whether the 8th defendant was wrongly joined and entitled to indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The originating summons was issued prematurely because the plaintiffs and their solicitors misunderstood the scope of directors' inspection rights, seeking copies and compilation rather than inspection; accordingly plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs of the originating summons and must pay the 8th defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs of the originating summons; Plaintiffs ordered to pay the 8th Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs shall pay the Defendants' costs of the originating summons
  • The Plaintiffs shall pay the 8th Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis