張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

D1 failed to demonstrate the necessary legal interest or necessity under either limb of Order 15 r 6(2)(b): his alleged personal testimony was confined to denials without further evidence, the Striking Out Summonses concern solicitors' authority (CWL v KLG) not rights of D1, and any factual allegations could be addressed by calling D1 as a witness; inherent jurisdiction was not engaged; accordingly leave to intervene was refused and costs awarded against D1.

Citation
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Group Plaintiff: Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by ZHANG CAIKUI (Please refer to Schedule 1 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees); 2nd Group Plaintiff: Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by LI YANMIN (Please refer to Schedule 2 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees); 1st Defendant: ZHANG CAIKUI (張才奎); 2nd Defendant: LI YANMIN (李延民); Interested Party: Messrs Nixon Peabody CWL (Previously known as Messrs CWL Partners)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2016
Case Number
HCA623/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust/ownership and Corporate Misconduct Claims (consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Hearing on Intervention Summons (application to Intervene in Striking Out/withdrawal Summonses)
Outcome
Intervention Summonses dismissed; costs ordered against D1; directions hearing to be listed before G Lam J; order nisi to be made final after 21 days.
Legal Topics
Intervention/joinder Under Order 15 R 6, Service of Summons (order 32 R 3), Withdrawal of Solicitors/authority to Act, Privilege and Waiver, Receivership, Breach of Trust, Protection of Reputation
Source Language
EN
Trusts Civil Procedure Company Law Equity Receivership Professional Conduct (solicitors) Intervention/joinder Under Order 15 R 6 Service of Summons (order 32 R 3) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by ZHANG CAIKUI (Please refer to Schedule 1 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees)

1st Group Plaintiff

Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by LI YANMIN (Please refer to Schedule 2 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees)

2nd Group Plaintiff

ZHANG CAIKUI (張才奎)

1st Defendant

LI YANMIN (李延民)

2nd Defendant

Messrs Nixon Peabody CWL (Previously known as Messrs CWL Partners)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust/ownership and Corporate Misconduct Claims (consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Hearing on Intervention Summons (application to Intervene in Striking Out/withdrawal Summonses)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the striking out/withdrawal summonses required service on D1 under Order 32 r 3
  2. 2 Whether D1 has standing/interest to intervene under Order 15 r 6(2)(b)(i) (presence necessary to determine all matters)
  3. 3 Whether D1 has a question or issue directly related to the relief under Order 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

D1 failed to demonstrate the necessary legal interest or necessity under either limb of Order 15 r 6(2)(b): his alleged personal testimony was confined to denials without further evidence, the Striking Out Summonses concern solicitors' authority (CWL v KLG) not rights of D1, and any factual allegations could be addressed by calling D1 as a witness; inherent jurisdiction was not engaged; accordingly leave to intervene was refused and costs awarded against D1.

Court Disposition

Intervention Summonses dismissed; costs ordered against D1; directions hearing to be listed before G Lam J; order nisi to be made final after 21 days.

Orders

  • Intervention Summonses dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by the 1st Defendant (D1) to the Plaintiffs forthwith with certificate for 2 counsel, to be taxed if not agreed