CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for appointment of a receiver was refused because the claim was speculative, founded on an unproven allegation of sale at undervalue insufficient to justify a receiver, and because plaintiffs had not offered payment or security required to exercise an equity of redemption; the proper course is to allow the winding‑up petition to proceed.

Citation
CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cheung Tsun Yung, Thomas; 2nd Plaintiff: Asia Special Situations GC1 Limited; 1st Defendant: Million Vision Investment Limited; 2nd Defendant: Star Asia Pacific Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2009
Case Number
HCMP2227/2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings — Application for Injunction and Appointment of Receiver Ancillary to Winding‑up Petition / Interim Application/hearing on Appointment of Receiver
Outcome
Application for appointment of receiver refused; winding‑up petition to proceed
Legal Topics
Receivership, Equity of Redemption, Undervalue Sale, Winding‑up Petition, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Corporate Law Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Receivership Equity of Redemption Undervalue Sale Winding‑up Petition +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Tsun Yung, Thomas

1st Plaintiff

Asia Special Situations GC1 Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Million Vision Investment Limited

1st Defendant

Star Asia Pacific Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings — Application for Injunction and Appointment of Receiver Ancillary to Winding‑up Petition / Interim Application/hearing on Appointment of Receiver

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a receiver should be appointed over the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the second plaintiff holds an enforceable equity of redemption
  3. 3 Whether the completed sale at RMB125 million was at an undervalue sufficient to justify appointing a receiver to investigate

Ratio Decidendi

The application for appointment of a receiver was refused because the claim was speculative, founded on an unproven allegation of sale at undervalue insufficient to justify a receiver, and because plaintiffs had not offered payment or security required to exercise an equity of redemption; the proper course is to allow the winding‑up petition to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for appointment of receiver refused; winding‑up petition to proceed

Orders

  • Application for appointment of receivers dismissed
  • Winding‑up petition to take its course and may be expedited; no receiver appointed at this stage