CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD

The court found the Petitioner's allegations largely unproven, the Respondent and his bookkeeper credible, transactions explained and justified, and no oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under s168A established; accordingly the petitions were dismissed and costs ordered against the Petitioner.

Citation
CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Chow Sau Hei; 1st Respondent: Ho Keung Yuen; Company: Smart Creator International Ltd; Company: Fintasy Ltd; Company: Turbo Cheer Development Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2013
Case Number
HCMP875/2010
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance / Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 168 a Companies Ordinance, Unfair Prejudice/oppression Remedy, Breach of Directors' Duties, Share Buyout Remedy, Accounting and Alleged Misappropriation, Tenancy and Asset Management
Source Language
EN
Company Law Corporate Governance Fiduciary Duties Civil Procedure Section 168 a Companies Ordinance Unfair Prejudice/oppression Remedy Breach of Directors' Duties Share Buyout Remedy +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chow Sau Hei

Petitioner

Ho Keung Yuen

1st Respondent

Smart Creator International Ltd

Company

Fintasy Ltd

Company

Turbo Cheer Development Ltd

Company

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance / Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under s168A
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent breached fiduciary or statutory duties to the companies
  3. 3 Whether alleged unauthorised bank withdrawals, overdraft and misappropriations occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Petitioner's allegations largely unproven, the Respondent and his bookkeeper credible, transactions explained and justified, and no oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under s168A established; accordingly the petitions were dismissed and costs ordered against the Petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed
  • Order nisi that the Petitioner pay the costs of the Petitions