BELLE CHOW v. GLORY MANOR COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

BELLE CHOW v. GLORY MANOR COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

Because the order for purchase was effectively made by agreement/consent and no findings of misconduct were made on the petition, the proper date for valuation is the date of the order, 24 April 1989; valuation to be assessed by an independent accountant and costs awarded to the respondents.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BELLE CHOW v. GLORY MANOR COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Belle Chow; 1st Respondent: Glory Manor Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: Wong Kai Tak; 3rd Respondent: Wong Cheong Lei Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 1989
Case Number
HCCW28/1989
Procedural Posture
Companies Petition (section 168 a Companies Ordinance) / Motion for Directions Following Court Order Regarding Valuation Date
Outcome
Court ordered valuation of petitioner's shares as at 24 April 1989 and awarded costs to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Purchase/buy Out of Minority Shares, Valuation Date, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Oppressive Conduct
Source Language
en
Company Law Winding Up Shareholder Remedies Equity Unfair Prejudice Purchase/buy Out of Minority Shares Valuation Date Just and Equitable Winding Up +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belle Chow

Petitioner

Glory Manor Company Limited

1st Respondent

Wong Kai Tak

2nd Respondent

Wong Cheong Lei Wah

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Petition (section 168 a Companies Ordinance) / Motion for Directions Following Court Order Regarding Valuation Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate date for valuation of petitioner's shares to be purchased pursuant to the court order
  2. 2 Whether valuation should be at date of petition, date of alleged misconduct, or date of the court order
  3. 3 Impact of absence of findings of misconduct on choice of valuation date

Ratio Decidendi

Because the order for purchase was effectively made by agreement/consent and no findings of misconduct were made on the petition, the proper date for valuation is the date of the order, 24 April 1989; valuation to be assessed by an independent accountant and costs awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Court ordered valuation of petitioner's shares as at 24 April 1989 and awarded costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • Petitioner's shares to be purchased by the 2nd and 3rd respondents at a price to be assessed by an independent accountant as at 24 April 1989.
  • Costs of the proceedings awarded to the respondents.