LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge did not err: the respondents' offers were not shown to be plainly reasonable, repayment of shareholder loans was part of the buyout entitlement and only accepted by respondents later, the discovery summons was justified, and the judge's factual findings supported the costs orders so appellate interference was unwarranted.

Citation
LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: LAI YUET CHUN; 1st Respondent: SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: POON HIN PONG; 3rd Respondent: LAU CHEUK LAM; 4th Respondent: LI OI LAN, TWINKLE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 October 2003
Case Number
HCMP3140/2003
Procedural Posture
Companies Petition (just and Equitable and S.168 A) / Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Orders (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs orders of the court below upheld
Legal Topics
Section 168 a Companies Ordinance, Winding Up (just and Equitable), Costs Orders, Strike Out Applications, Specific Discovery, Calderbank Offers
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Section 168 a Companies Ordinance Winding Up (just and Equitable) Costs Orders Strike Out Applications +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAI YUET CHUN

Petitioner

SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent

POON HIN PONG

2nd Respondent

LAU CHEUK LAM

3rd Respondent

LI OI LAN, TWINKLE

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Petition (just and Equitable and S.168 A) / Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Orders (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' offers were 'plainly reasonable' so as to shift costs under Calderbank principles
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in awarding the petitioner costs of the strike out summons, discovery summons and the petition generally
  3. 3 Whether winding up relief was unnecessary in light of s.168A buyout offers

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge did not err: the respondents' offers were not shown to be plainly reasonable, repayment of shareholder loans was part of the buyout entitlement and only accepted by respondents later, the discovery summons was justified, and the judge's factual findings supported the costs orders so appellate interference was unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs orders of the court below upheld

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Costs orders of the court below upheld (petitioner's costs awarded as ordered below)