Re Chor Lau Heung Restaurant Co. Ltd.

Re Chor Lau Heung Restaurant Co. Ltd.

The presumption of advancement in favour of the Petitioner was rebutted on the facts and the court inferred the 50 shares were not intended as a gift; the Petitioner failed to prove a quasi-partnership or any unfairly prejudicial conduct warranting winding up or buy-out; accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Citation
Re Chor Lau Heung Restaurant Co. Ltd.
Parties
Petitioner: Hung Mui; Respondent (company): Chor Lau Heung Restaurant Company Limited; Respondent (personal Representative): Angela Tang Chui Yuk; Respondent (personal Representative): Siu Wing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2000
Case Number
HCCW63/1999
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings Under the Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Judgment (reasons Handed Down)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Winding Up, Oppression/unfair Prejudice (s.177, S.168 A), Quasi Partnership, Presumption of Advancement, Buy Out Relief Under S.168 a
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Just and Equitable Winding Up Oppression/unfair Prejudice (s.177, S.168 A) Quasi Partnership Presumption of Advancement +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hung Mui

Petitioner

Chor Lau Heung Restaurant Company Limited

Respondent (company)

Angela Tang Chui Yuk

Respondent (personal Representative)

Siu Wing

Respondent (personal Representative)

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings Under the Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Judgment (reasons Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 50 shares registered in the Petitioner’s name were held beneficially or on trust for the Deceased (trust issue)
  2. 2 Whether a quasi-partnership/family business existed between the Petitioner and the Deceased
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents amounted to unfairly prejudicial or oppressive conduct triggering relief under s.177(1)(c)/(f) or s.168A(2)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of advancement in favour of the Petitioner was rebutted on the facts and the court inferred the 50 shares were not intended as a gift; the Petitioner failed to prove a quasi-partnership or any unfairly prejudicial conduct warranting winding up or buy-out; accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Originating summonses MP3907/1997 and MP4196/1997 restored for hearing