WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS

WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the judge correctly applied the established tests for interim receivership, there was no solid evidence of a real risk of ongoing dissipation, the defendants' undertakings were adequate, and the potential uncompensable harm to D3 meant receivership was not justified; appellate intervention on discretionary exercise was not warranted.

Citation
WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicants: Plaintiffs; Respondents: 1st to 6th, 10th and 11th Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 January 2017
Case Number
HCMP2906/2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Interim Receivers; Leave to Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Determined on Written Submissions; Leave Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Receivership, Leave to Appeal, Dissipation of Assets, Constructive Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Trusts Injunctions and Receivership Interim Receivership Leave to Appeal Dissipation of Assets Constructive Trust +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Applicants

1st to 6th, 10th and 11th Defendants

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Interim Receivers; Leave to Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Determined on Written Submissions; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 14AA(4)
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets warranting interim receivership
  3. 3 Whether defendants undertakings are adequate to protect plaintiffs' interests

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the judge correctly applied the established tests for interim receivership, there was no solid evidence of a real risk of ongoing dissipation, the defendants' undertakings were adequate, and the potential uncompensable harm to D3 meant receivership was not justified; appellate intervention on discretionary exercise was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) no party may under rule 2A(7) request reconsideration at an oral inter partes hearing