OCEAN COUNTRY LTD v. WEALTHY VANTAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

OCEAN COUNTRY LTD v. WEALTHY VANTAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

Refusal of leave because it was not prima facie in the interest of Wealthy Vantage and Golden Field: their defence would be identical to Mr Tang's; their interests would be protected by Mr Kwan without incurring separate legal costs; and Kaiser gave an undertaking not to enter default judgment, so the companies would not suffer real prejudice from refusal.

Citation
OCEAN COUNTRY LTD v. WEALTHY VANTAGE LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (hcmp438/2013): Ocean Country Limited; Applicant (hcmp439/2013): Oswego Agents Limited; 1st Respondent (hcmp438/2013): Wealthy Vantage Limited; 1st Respondent (hcmp439/2013): Golden Field Holdings Limited; 2nd Respondent (hcmp438/2013 & Hcmp439/2013): Uprise Finance Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2013
Case Number
HCMP438/2013
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave Under Section 168 BC Companies Ordinance to Conduct Defence on Behalf of Companies / Heard and Decided (applications Refused by Poon J on 7 November 2013; Reasons Handed Down 9 December 2013)
Outcome
Applications HCMP438/2013 and HCMP439/2013 refused
Legal Topics
Section 168 BC Companies Ordinance, Leave to Conduct Defence on Behalf of Company, Trespass, Mesne Profit, Joint Venture/licence Disputes
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Property Law Section 168 BC Companies Ordinance Leave to Conduct Defence on Behalf of Company Trespass Mesne Profit Joint Venture/licence Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocean Country Limited

Applicant (hcmp438/2013)

Oswego Agents Limited

Applicant (hcmp439/2013)

Wealthy Vantage Limited

1st Respondent (hcmp438/2013)

Golden Field Holdings Limited

1st Respondent (hcmp439/2013)

Uprise Finance Limited

2nd Respondent (hcmp438/2013 & Hcmp439/2013)

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave Under Section 168 BC Companies Ordinance to Conduct Defence on Behalf of Companies / Heard and Decided (applications Refused by Poon J on 7 November 2013; Reasons Handed Down 9 December 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether members should be granted leave under section 168BC to conduct the defence on behalf of Wealthy Vantage and Golden Field
  2. 2 Whether granting leave is prima facie in the interest of the specified corporations
  3. 3 Whether the companies would suffer real prejudice if leave is refused and they do not participate

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of leave because it was not prima facie in the interest of Wealthy Vantage and Golden Field: their defence would be identical to Mr Tang's; their interests would be protected by Mr Kwan without incurring separate legal costs; and Kaiser gave an undertaking not to enter default judgment, so the companies would not suffer real prejudice from refusal.

Court Disposition

Applications HCMP438/2013 and HCMP439/2013 refused

Orders

  • Applications for leave under section 168BC by Ocean Country Limited and Oswego Agents Limited to conduct the defence on behalf of Wealthy Vantage Limited and Golden Field Holdings Limited respectively are refused