NG WAI LING v. CHAN PING FAI RICKY AND ANOTHER

NG WAI LING v. CHAN PING FAI RICKY AND ANOTHER

The court held the petitions must not be struck out: the petitioner has locus under section 168A(5) and may present winding-up relief in the alternative prior to probate; the proposed amendments sufficiently plead facts (quasi-partnership, common intention, and other misconduct) that are not plainly bound to fail...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
NG WAI LING v. CHAN PING FAI RICKY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner and Asserted Sole Executrix of Deceased's Estate: Petitioner (daughter of Madam Ngan Sa Yeung Amy); 1st Respondent; Co Founder, Equal Shareholder and Director of Subject Companies: 1st Respondent; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Case Number
HCCW261/2008
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petitions Under Sections 168 a and 177(1)(f) With Alternative Winding Up Relief / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out Summonses by 1st Respondent and Amendment Application by Petitioner
Outcome
Strike out applications dismissed; amendment applications allowed
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Winding Up, Section 168 a Relief for Personal Representatives, Locus/standing of Executors Prior to Probate, Strike Out for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action, Amendment of Pleadings, Validation Orders
Source Language
en
Company Law Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Just and Equitable Winding Up Section 168 a Relief for Personal Representatives Locus/standing of Executors Prior to Probate Strike Out for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action Amendment of Pleadings +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner (daughter of Madam Ngan Sa Yeung Amy)

Petitioner and Asserted Sole Executrix of Deceased's Estate

1st Respondent

1st Respondent; Co Founder, Equal Shareholder and Director of Subject Companies

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Petitions Under Sections 168 a and 177(1)(f) With Alternative Winding Up Relief / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out Summonses by 1st Respondent and Amendment Application by Petitioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner lacking probate must be struck out or have winding-up prayer struck out
  2. 2 Whether the petition pleads sufficient particulars of quasi-partnership/common understanding to sustain just and equitable winding-up or section 168A relief
  3. 3 Whether a stay rather than strike out is appropriate pending probate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the petitions must not be struck out: the petitioner has locus under section 168A(5) and may present winding-up relief in the alternative prior to probate; the proposed amendments sufficiently plead facts (quasi-partnership, common intention, and other misconduct) that are not plainly bound to fail and therefore merit trial; the strike out application was dismissed and amendment allowed.

Court Disposition

Strike out applications dismissed; amendment applications allowed

Orders

  • Strike out application by 1st respondent dismissed
  • 1st respondent ordered to pay two-thirds of petitioner's costs of the strike out application in any event