DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

HCMP 1526/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1526 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER of MINLOY LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 32) BETWEEN DENNIS KWOK HON MING Petitioner and POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT 1st Respondent IRENE TSENG 2nd Respondent YANG HONG CHING NORRIS 3rd Respondent LUO MING XIN WILLIAM 4th Respondent also known as LO MING TAK WILLIAM LAW WING MEI HELEN 5th Respondent ASIAN ADVENTURE LIMITED 6th Respondent ENCHANTMENT PROPERTIES LIMITED 7th Respondent CHINA FUNDS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 8th Respondent MINLOY LIMITED 9th Respondent AND HCMP 1527/2013 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1527 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER of TOP MASTER DEVELOPMENT LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 32) BETWEEN DENNIS KWOK HON MING Petitioner and POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT 1st Respondent IRENE TSENG 2nd Respondent YANG HONG CHING NORRIS 3rd Respondent LUO MING XIN WILLIAM 4th Respondent also known as LO MING TAK WILLIAM LAW WING MEI HELEN 5th Respondent ASIAN ADVENTURE LIMITED 6th Respondent ENCHANTMENT PROPERTIES LIMITED 7th Respondent CHINA FUNDS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 8th Respondent TOP MASTER DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 9th Respondent AND HCMP 1528/2013 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1528 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER of WEALTH ISLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 32) BETWEEN DENNIS KWOK HON MING Petitioner and POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT 1st Respondent IRENE TSENG 2nd Respondent YANG HONG CHING NORRIS 3rd Respondent LUO MING XIN WILLIAM 4th Respondent also known as LO MING TAK WILLIAM LAW WING MEI HELEN 5th Respondent ASIAN ADVENTURE LIMITED 6th Respondent ENCHANTMENT PROPERTIES LIMITED 7th Respondent CHINA FUNDS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 8th Respondent WEALTH ISLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 9th Respondent (Consolidated pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Harris dated 27 January 2015) Before: Deputy High Court Judge R Ismail SC in Chambers Date of Hearing: 14 November 2017 Date of Decision: 14 November 2017 ____________________ R U L I N G ____________________ The parties have, by consent summons, approved today, agreed that as to the costs of the Companies’ summons issued on 12 September 2017, the costs incurred after 12 September 2017 should be payable by the Petitioner to the Companies, to be taxed if not agreed. In dispute is the costs incurred previously. It seems to me that the responsibility for those costs depends on whether the Companies’ summons was reasonably taken out on 12 September 2017, or was premature. Although the Companies’ summons in original form, and as amended on 26 October, is worded generally as a request for the return of the Companies’ documents, it is supported by the 1st affirmation of Mr Solomon Tseng, which specifically requests an order be made in compliance with paragraph 5 of my order of 21 February 2017. That order was for delivery up of documents by the Petitioner to the Companies after issue of the final valuation report. By way of chronology, the Valuers were not appointed until 15 March 2017, and thereafter, directions were made for them to make a report, and then for there to be a question and answer session. It was common ground that the report would not be final before the completion of the question and answer session. There were also directions made for the parties to make applications for any further expert evidence within 14 days after the completion of the question and answer session. The Valuer’s question and answer session was not complete until 15 August 2017. On 14 August, the Companies requested the Petitioner to comply with the order for discovery by 18 August. On 18 August, the Petitioner responded to say that further supplemental reports would be sought from the Valuer, and that the application would be made pursuant to the court’s directions. It seems to me that at that time, it is at least arguable that the valuation process was not complete. The Petitioner thereafter took out an application for a supplemental valuation report. As it happens, that application was dismissed on 26 October 2017. However, it seems to me that the position between 18 August 2017 and 12 September 2017 was that it was at least arguable that the valuation process by the Valuer appointed by the court in March was not yet complete. In the circumstances, I take the view that the Companies’ application for compliance with paragraph 5 of the 22 February 2017 order was premature when made on 12 September 2017. Accordingly, I order that with respect to costs in respect of the Companies’ summons before 12 September 2017, there should be no order as to costs. On the amended inter partes summons, which was refiled on 26 October 2017, as to paragraph 2, (without prejudice to paragraph 4 of the consent order made on 14 November 2017 pursuant to the consent summons filed on 10 November 2017) there be no order as to costs, and paragraph 1 be dismissed. I do not disturb in any way the consent order that is made. That is recorded. Without prejudice to that, the balance of the costs before 12 September 2017 should be subject to no order as to costs. (Roxanne Ismail, SC) Deputy High Court Judge The Petitioner appeared in person (in all cases) Attendance of Lo & Lo, for the 1st to 4th and 6th to 8th Respondents, was excused (in all cases) The 5th Respondent was not represented and did not appear (in all cases) Mr E Chong, of Li & Partners, for the 9th Respondent (in all cases)