DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The court declined to amend its prior order of 10 November because the issues raised were matters that had been or could have been addressed earlier, the engagement letter as originally drafted did not unreasonably require further valuations for assets already valuated years earlier, and there was no need to create an amendment that might permit valuers to avoid obtaining necessary valuations; accordingly the court dismissed the respondents' summonses, directed the respondents to sign the engagement letter within three days, and awarded the Petitioner's costs on a party-and-party basis.

Citation
DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: PINE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: DONG FUNG HOLDINGS LIMITED; 3rd Respondent: CHAN KIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2011
Case Number
HCCW322/2006
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Prior Order / Hearing on Summonses
Outcome
Court declined to amend prior order; Mr Coleman's summonses dismissed; Respondents directed to sign engagement letter; Petitioner's costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Appointment of Valuers, Engagement Letter, Amendment of Court Orders, Inspection of Documents, Costs of Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Valuation Law Winding Up Appointment of Valuers Engagement Letter Amendment of Court Orders +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PINE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Petitioner

DONG FUNG HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Respondent

CHAN KIN

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Prior Order / Hearing on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should amend its previous order in respect of the valuers' engagement letter
  2. 2 Whether valuers are obliged to obtain further valuations years after prior valuations
  3. 3 Extent of the Petitioner's inspection rights over documents provided to the valuers

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to amend its prior order of 10 November because the issues raised were matters that had been or could have been addressed earlier, the engagement letter as originally drafted did not unreasonably require further valuations for assets already valuated years earlier, and there was no need to create an amendment that might permit valuers to avoid obtaining necessary valuations; accordingly the court dismissed the respondents' summonses, directed the respondents to sign the engagement letter within three days, and awarded the Petitioner's costs on a party-and-party basis.

Court Disposition

Court declined to amend prior order; Mr Coleman's summonses dismissed; Respondents directed to sign engagement letter; Petitioner's costs awarded.

Orders

  • Decline to amend the order made on 10 November
  • Dismiss Mr Coleman's summonses