TONG HOK TAK, DAFFY AND OTHERS v. BEVERLY CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS

TONG HOK TAK, DAFFY AND OTHERS v. BEVERLY CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS

The summons was dismissed because the BVI legal opinions, although dated after 1 August 2003, did not constitute matters occurring since the order that went to the validity of the Order as required by Order 45 r11; furthermore discretionary factors — imminent appeal hearing, absence of explanation for not producing the opinions earlier, and that the defendants' objections related to implementation rather than substance — warranted refusing a stay.

Citation
TONG HOK TAK, DAFFY AND OTHERS v. BEVERLY CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tong Hok Tak, Daffy; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheung Look Ping, Ophelia; 3rd Plaintiff: Golden Valley Agents Limited; 1st Defendant: Beverly Consultants Limited; 2nd Defendant: Leong Wing Jann, Alvin (also known as Alvin Leong); 3rd Defendant: Star World International Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2003
Case Number
HCA2617/2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Stay Under Order 45 Rule 11 (civil) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Interim Stay of Execution of Interlocutory Injunction/order
Outcome
The 1st and 2nd defendants' summons dated 16 October 2003 is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Order 45 Rule 11, Stay of Execution, Authority of Company to Sue, Ratification, Fresh Legal Opinions
Source Language
EN

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tong Hok Tak, Daffy

1st Plaintiff

Cheung Look Ping, Ophelia

2nd Plaintiff

Golden Valley Agents Limited

3rd Plaintiff

Beverly Consultants Limited

1st Defendant

Leong Wing Jann, Alvin (also known as Alvin Leong)

2nd Defendant

Star World International Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Stay Under Order 45 Rule 11 (civil) / Chambers Decision on Summons for Interim Stay of Execution of Interlocutory Injunction/order

  1. 1 Whether legal opinions obtained after the order constitute 'matters which have occurred since the date of the order' under Order 45 r11
  2. 2 Whether the new BVI legal opinions affect the validity of the interlocutory Order of 1 August 2003
  3. 3 Whether Golden Valley Agents Limited had authority to bring proceedings and whether lack of authority undermines the Order

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the BVI legal opinions, although dated after 1 August 2003, did not constitute matters occurring since the order that went to the validity of the Order as required by Order 45 r11; furthermore discretionary factors — imminent appeal hearing, absence of explanation for not producing the opinions earlier, and that the defendants' objections related to implementation rather than substance — warranted refusing a stay.

Court Disposition

The 1st and 2nd defendants' summons dated 16 October 2003 is dismissed.

Orders

  • Summons dated 16 October 2003 dismissed.
  • Costs to the plaintiffs against the 1st and 2nd defendants, to be taxed if not agreed.