CHAINTOWER CO LTD AND OTHERS v. SNOWBRIGHT CO LTD AND OTHERS

CHAINTOWER CO LTD AND OTHERS v. SNOWBRIGHT CO LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that no term could be implied to restrict Gwynedd's express contractual right to transfer shares to Carrian Holdings; an implied term that contradicted the explicit provisions (Clause 10 and Article 33) was impermissible, and on the facts no lawful implication arose — accordingly the interim injunction was unjustified and was discharged and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed.

Citation
CHAINTOWER CO LTD AND OTHERS v. SNOWBRIGHT CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chaintower Co. Ltd.; 2nd Plaintiff: Wise Maneon Investment Ltd.; 3rd Plaintiff: Miramar Hotel & Investment Co. Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Snowbright Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Carrian Holdings Ltd.; 3rd Defendant: Gwynedd Investments Ltd.; 4th Defendant: The Hong Kong Land Co. Ltd.; 5th Defendant: Armatys Estates Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 1983
Case Number
HCMP11877/1983
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract/joint Venture (property) / High Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; interim injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Joint Venture, Share Transfer, Guarantees, Registration of Transfers, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Company Law Property Law Equity Insolvency Implied Terms Joint Venture Share Transfer +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chaintower Co. Ltd.

1st Plaintiff

Wise Maneon Investment Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Miramar Hotel & Investment Co. Ltd.

3rd Plaintiff

Snowbright Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant

Carrian Holdings Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Gwynedd Investments Ltd.

3rd Defendant

The Hong Kong Land Co. Ltd.

4th Defendant

Armatys Estates Ltd.

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract/joint Venture (property) / High Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied contractual term could prevent transfer of shares to an insolvent transferee
  2. 2 Whether registration of a share transfer entered without proper board approval could be set aside after plaintiffs obtained an injunction
  3. 3 Whether guarantor obligations required performance notwithstanding a share transfer to an insolvent entity

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that no term could be implied to restrict Gwynedd's express contractual right to transfer shares to Carrian Holdings; an implied term that contradicted the explicit provisions (Clause 10 and Article 33) was impermissible, and on the facts no lawful implication arose — accordingly the interim injunction was unjustified and was discharged and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; interim injunction discharged

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Interim injunction discharged