KWOK KWAI KONG AND ANOTHER v. LO KWING CHIU AND ANOTHER

KWOK KWAI KONG AND ANOTHER v. LO KWING CHIU AND ANOTHER

Impracticability to hold a general meeting was established by the 1st defendant's refusal to attend and likely refusal to attend any general meeting; accordingly the court will exercise its statutory power under s114B to order an extraordinary general meeting to be convened and will award costs against the defendant who caused the need for the application.

Citation
KWOK KWAI KONG AND ANOTHER v. LO KWING CHIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KWOK KWAI KONG; 2nd Plaintiff: SHUM SHUE CHUP; 1st Defendant: LO KWING CHIU; 2nd Defendant: JETCO COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Case Number
HCMP2480/2006
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Section 114 B Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 / Decision (in Chambers)
Outcome
Order granted in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating summons; no order made in terms of paragraph 3; costs awarded against the 1st defendant in terms of paragraph 5 of the originating summons.
Legal Topics
Extraordinary General Meeting, Impracticability to Convene Meeting, Directors' Remuneration Dispute, Shareholder Relief Under Section 114 B
Source Language
EN
Company Law Corporate Governance Civil Procedure Extraordinary General Meeting Impracticability to Convene Meeting Directors' Remuneration Dispute Shareholder Relief Under Section 114 B

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

Parties

KWOK KWAI KONG

1st Plaintiff

SHUM SHUE CHUP

2nd Plaintiff

LO KWING CHIU

1st Defendant

JETCO COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Section 114 B Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 / Decision (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is impracticable to convene an extraordinary general meeting pursuant to s114B of the Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its statutory power to order convening of the meeting
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the defendant who refused to attend meetings

Ratio Decidendi

Impracticability to hold a general meeting was established by the 1st defendant's refusal to attend and likely refusal to attend any general meeting; accordingly the court will exercise its statutory power under s114B to order an extraordinary general meeting to be convened and will award costs against the defendant who caused the need for the application.

Court Disposition

Order granted in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating summons; no order made in terms of paragraph 3; costs awarded against the 1st defendant in terms of paragraph 5 of the originating summons.

Orders

  • Order convening an extraordinary general meeting in terms of paragraph 1 of the originating summons
  • Order in terms of paragraph 2 of the originating summons