TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG AND OTHERS

TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG AND OTHERS

The summons to strike out was dismissed because the existence of a fiduciary relationship and any duty to account was fact-sensitive on the evidence and not a plain and obvious case for striking out; where an adviser invited plaintiffs to invest in a project he managed and assumed day-to-day control, it is legally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: True Rank Holdings Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Chun Sing China Limited; 1st Defendant: Lam Ka Chung, William; 2nd Defendant: Leung Yim Wah, Stephen; 3rd Defendant: Quock Leung Kit Wah, Rosa; 4th Defendant: Camford Development Limited; 5th Defendant: Camford Holdings Limited; 6th Defendant: Good Lead Asia Limited; 7th Defendant: Quock Wei Feng, Winson; 8th Defendant: Quock Wei Yin, Wendy
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2004
Case Number
HCMP4078/2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (originating Summons) Court of First Instance Hcmp4078/2003 / Ruling on Summons to Strike Out (application Dated 1 Nov 2003)
Outcome
Application by 1st defendant to strike out Originating Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duty, Quistclose Trust, Account and Inquiry, Striking Out for Disclosing No Cause of Action, Abuse of Process, Originating Summons Vs Writ
Source Language
en
Company Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Limitation Law Fiduciary Duty Quistclose Trust Account and Inquiry Striking Out for Disclosing No Cause of Action +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

True Rank Holdings Limited

1st Plaintiff

Chun Sing China Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Lam Ka Chung, William

1st Defendant

Leung Yim Wah, Stephen

2nd Defendant

Quock Leung Kit Wah, Rosa

3rd Defendant

Camford Development Limited

4th Defendant

Camford Holdings Limited

5th Defendant

Good Lead Asia Limited

6th Defendant

Quock Wei Feng, Winson

7th Defendant

Quock Wei Yin, Wendy

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (originating Summons) Court of First Instance Hcmp4078/2003 / Ruling on Summons to Strike Out (application Dated 1 Nov 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trust or fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Originating Summons discloses a cause of action against the 1st defendant
  3. 3 Whether alleged breaches (if any) are time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to strike out was dismissed because the existence of a fiduciary relationship and any duty to account was fact-sensitive on the evidence and not a plain and obvious case for striking out; where an adviser invited plaintiffs to invest in a project he managed and assumed day-to-day control, it is legally viable that a fiduciary relationship or duty to account could be found, so the claim cannot be struck out at this stage; procedural irregularity in commencing by Originating Summons does not require dismissal and the action may proceed (including under Order 28 to continue as if begun by writ).

Court Disposition

Application by 1st defendant to strike out Originating Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 1 November 2003 by the 1st defendant dismissed with costs (nisi) to the plaintiffs
  • Certificate for two counsel granted