CHUNG HO FAI v. GORDON (HK) DESIGNER & ENGINEER LTD AND OTHERS

CHUNG HO FAI v. GORDON (HK) DESIGNER & ENGINEER LTD AND OTHERS

The ex parte injunction was refused because the petitioner failed to show the requisite urgency and lack of adequate remedies; there was a real prospect that equitable remedies in Hong Kong (including constructive trust over the 51% holding) would provide redress, so ex parte relief was not justified.

Citation
CHUNG HO FAI v. GORDON (HK) DESIGNER & ENGINEER LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Chung Ho Fai; 1st Respondent: Gordon (H.K.) Designer & Engineer Limited; 2nd Respondent: Strike Engineering Limited; 3rd Respondent: Victrad Enterprise (Pte) Limited; 4th Respondent: Chua Koh Ming; 5th Respondent: Choong Seng San; 6th Respondent: Umar Abdul Hamid; 7th Respondent: Lim Chiao Hak Clement
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2004
Case Number
HCMP1203/2004
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petition / Miscellaneous Proceedings / Ex Parte Application for Injunction — Judgment in Chambers
Outcome
Ex parte injunction application refused.
Legal Topics
Registration of PRC Subsidiary, Minority Shareholder Protection, Fraud on the Minority, Constructive Trust, Interim Injunctive Relief
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Injunctions Cross Border Corporate Transactions Registration of PRC Subsidiary Minority Shareholder Protection Fraud on the Minority Constructive Trust +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chung Ho Fai

Petitioner

Gordon (H.K.) Designer & Engineer Limited

1st Respondent

Strike Engineering Limited

2nd Respondent

Victrad Enterprise (Pte) Limited

3rd Respondent

Chua Koh Ming

4th Respondent

Choong Seng San

5th Respondent

Umar Abdul Hamid

6th Respondent

Lim Chiao Hak Clement

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Petition / Miscellaneous Proceedings / Ex Parte Application for Injunction — Judgment in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex parte injunction should be granted to restrain registration and transfer of business to a PRC company
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner demonstrated urgency and risk of dissipation to justify ex parte relief
  3. 3 Whether adequate remedies exist in Hong Kong that obviate the need for ex parte relief

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte injunction was refused because the petitioner failed to show the requisite urgency and lack of adequate remedies; there was a real prospect that equitable remedies in Hong Kong (including constructive trust over the 51% holding) would provide redress, so ex parte relief was not justified.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction application refused.

Orders

  • Application for ex parte injunction refused.