YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS

The court dismissed the applications for pre-trial valuation and the applications to amend the petitions/defences. The valuation applications were refused because, on balance, they were unlikely to advance settlement given disclosure deficiencies and would impose unnecessary costs; the amendment applications were refused because the proposed allegations were largely time-barred or lacked a sufficient basis of unfairness attributable to the respondents, particularly where earlier audited accounts signed by the petitioner disclosed the accounting treatment complained of.

Citation
YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner/1st Defendant: Yung Yui Kwai; 1st Respondent/1st Petitioner: Yung Woon Kwai; 2nd Respondent/2nd Petitioner: Tang Chack Wing; 3rd Respondent/1st Plaintiff/4th Plaintiff: Chun Yip Plastics Limited; 3rd Respondent/2nd Plaintiff/2nd Plaintiff: Chun Yip Industrial (Holding) Limited; 4th Respondent/3rd Plaintiff: Chun Yip Holdings Limited; 2nd Respondent/3rd Plaintiff/3rd Plaintiff: Joinmark Investment Limited; 3rd Respondent/3rd Plaintiff: Max Smart International Enterprise Limited; 3rd Respondent/4th Respondent: Well Joy Investment Limited; 3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant/2nd Plaintiff: Yung Hung Chun Lawrence; 6th Respondent/3rd Petitioner/3rd Respondent: Yung Wai Yu Patricia; 5th Respondent/4th Plaintiff: Chun Yip Plastics Limited (Macao Commercial Offshore)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Case Number
HCMP2153/2009
Procedural Posture
Company Petitions and Related High Court Actions Under Companies Ordinance / Interlocutory Applications (pre Trial Valuation and Applications to Amend Pleadings) Heard in Chambers
Outcome
All interlocutory applications dismissed (pre-trial valuation applications and amendment applications dismissed). Costs reserved to be argued.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Pre Trial Valuation of Companies, Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery and Disclosure, Fiduciary Duties, Settlement Facilitation
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Unfair Prejudice Pre Trial Valuation of Companies Amendment of Pleadings Discovery and Disclosure Fiduciary Duties +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yung Yui Kwai

Petitioner/1st Defendant

Yung Woon Kwai

1st Respondent/1st Petitioner

Tang Chack Wing

2nd Respondent/2nd Petitioner

Chun Yip Plastics Limited

3rd Respondent/1st Plaintiff/4th Plaintiff

Chun Yip Industrial (Holding) Limited

3rd Respondent/2nd Plaintiff/2nd Plaintiff

Chun Yip Holdings Limited

4th Respondent/3rd Plaintiff

Joinmark Investment Limited

2nd Respondent/3rd Plaintiff/3rd Plaintiff

Max Smart International Enterprise Limited

3rd Respondent/3rd Plaintiff

Well Joy Investment Limited

3rd Respondent/4th Respondent

Yung Hung Chun Lawrence

3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant/2nd Plaintiff

Yung Wai Yu Patricia

6th Respondent/3rd Petitioner/3rd Respondent

Chun Yip Plastics Limited (Macao Commercial Offshore)

5th Respondent/4th Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Company Petitions and Related High Court Actions Under Companies Ordinance / Interlocutory Applications (pre Trial Valuation and Applications to Amend Pleadings) Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order a pre-trial valuation of companies to facilitate settlement
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments to petitions/defences adding allegations of unfairly prejudicial conduct should be permitted
  3. 3 Whether alleged accounting mischaracterisations, some time-barred, can constitute unfair prejudice when earlier financial statements were approved by the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the applications for pre-trial valuation and the applications to amend the petitions/defences. The valuation applications were refused because, on balance, they were unlikely to advance settlement given disclosure deficiencies and would impose unnecessary costs; the amendment applications were refused because the proposed allegations were largely time-barred or lacked a sufficient basis of unfairness attributable to the respondents, particularly where earlier audited accounts signed by the petitioner disclosed the accounting treatment complained of.

Court Disposition

All interlocutory applications dismissed (pre-trial valuation applications and amendment applications dismissed). Costs reserved to be argued.

Orders

  • Applications for pre-trial valuation dismissed
  • Applications for leave to amend the Re-Amended Petition and Amended Defence dismissed