LAM DIP YEE v. BESTWELL FAREAST LTD AND OTHERS

LAM DIP YEE v. BESTWELL FAREAST LTD AND OTHERS

The court struck out specified paragraphs of the petition and the winding-up prayer because the pleaded allegations were unparticularised, embarrassing or irrelevant and did not show facts from which unfairly prejudicial conduct could be inferred; further, the company was solvent and the petitioner sought a buy-out alternative, and she had not shown why winding up was the preferred remedy or that she would suffer real prejudice, so the winding-up claim was unreasonable and struck out.

Citation
LAM DIP YEE v. BESTWELL FAREAST LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Lam Dip Yee; 1st Respondent: Bestwell Fareast Limited; 2nd Respondent: Tse Din Yin; 3rd Respondent: Tse Su Kin Benny; 4th Respondent: Tse Tin Man Vincent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2003
Case Number
HCCW1213/2002
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (companies Ordinance S168 a Petition) / Interlocutory Strike Out Application in Chambers
Outcome
Strike out parts of petition and strike out winding-up prayer; costs order nisi against petitioner
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Winding Up, Oppressive/unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Strike Out for Want of Particulars, Buy Out Order Under S168 a, Appointment of Provisional Liquidator
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Just and Equitable Winding Up Oppressive/unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Strike Out for Want of Particulars Buy Out Order Under S168 a Appointment of Provisional Liquidator

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Dip Yee

Petitioner

Bestwell Fareast Limited

1st Respondent

Tse Din Yin

2nd Respondent

Tse Su Kin Benny

3rd Respondent

Tse Tin Man Vincent

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings (companies Ordinance S168 a Petition) / Interlocutory Strike Out Application in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17 of the petition are embarrassing, unparticularised or irrelevant and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the prayer for a winding-up order should be struck out as unreasonable given a viable buy-out alternative and the company’s solvency
  3. 3 Whether unpleaded allegations (eg formation of BF Group) can support a winding-up claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out specified paragraphs of the petition and the winding-up prayer because the pleaded allegations were unparticularised, embarrassing or irrelevant and did not show facts from which unfairly prejudicial conduct could be inferred; further, the company was solvent and the petitioner sought a buy-out alternative, and she had not shown why winding up was the preferred remedy or that she would suffer real prejudice, so the winding-up claim was unreasonable and struck out.

Court Disposition

Strike out parts of petition and strike out winding-up prayer; costs order nisi against petitioner

Orders

  • The part of paragraph 9 of the Petition that reads "when Your Petitioner requested TDY, TSKB and/or TTMV on behalf of the Company in order to facilitate the cash flow of the Company as well as demanding him to return all books and records of the Company so that the Company accounts could be properly audited",...
  • There be an order nisi that the petitioner pays the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents' costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed.