WILLIAM JOHN LAU v. WAN YUK LIN ALISON AND OTHERS

WILLIAM JOHN LAU v. WAN YUK LIN ALISON AND OTHERS

The summons was dismissed because the court did not have power under the terms of the schedule to the Tomlin order to compel the 1st to 3rd respondents to clarify the alleged discrepancies; the proper course is for the valuers to decide whether to make reasonable assumptions or to revise the valuation in light of any manifest error, and the petitioner was ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the application.

Citation
WILLIAM JOHN LAU v. WAN YUK LIN ALISON AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: William John Lau; 1st Respondent: Wan Yuk Lin Alison; 2nd Respondent: Lee Wai Shuen Angela; 3rd Respondent: Yau Wai Kuen; 4th Respondent: Skydon Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Case Number
HCCW576/2007
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Application (summons) Heard in Chambers
Outcome
Summons dismissed; petitioner ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the application to the 1st to 3rd respondents; attendance of the Official Receiver excused.
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order, Inherent Jurisdiction, Valuation of Shares, Party Cooperation/disclosure, Manifest Error in Valuation, Costs Apportionment
Source Language
EN
Companies Law Civil Procedure Valuation Costs Tomlin Order Inherent Jurisdiction Valuation of Shares Party Cooperation/disclosure +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William John Lau

Petitioner

Wan Yuk Lin Alison

1st Respondent

Lee Wai Shuen Angela

2nd Respondent

Yau Wai Kuen

3rd Respondent

Skydon Development Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Application (summons) Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under its inherent jurisdiction to compel the 1st to 3rd respondents to answer valuers' queries despite the valuation being by consent under a Tomlin schedule
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the Tomlin order authorised the court to make the compulsory order sought
  3. 3 What the valuers' powers and duties are where parties do not cooperate and whether they may make reasonable assumptions or revise their report for manifest error

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the court did not have power under the terms of the schedule to the Tomlin order to compel the 1st to 3rd respondents to clarify the alleged discrepancies; the proper course is for the valuers to decide whether to make reasonable assumptions or to revise the valuation in light of any manifest error, and the petitioner was ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; petitioner ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the application to the 1st to 3rd respondents; attendance of the Official Receiver excused.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Petitioner to pay 50% of the costs of the application to the 1st to 3rd respondents