STEPHEN NG NGON KWAN AND OTHERS v. KEVIN HSU SHANG AND OTHERS

STEPHEN NG NGON KWAN AND OTHERS v. KEVIN HSU SHANG AND OTHERS

On the pleaded facts and evidence, an objective assessment shows the plaintiff either knew or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud by December 1987; s26 therefore does not postpone limitation; allowing the time-barred claim to proceed would be an abuse of process; accordingly the defendants' striking-out application is granted and the claim is struck out.

Citation
STEPHEN NG NGON KWAN AND OTHERS v. KEVIN HSU SHANG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: STEPHEN NG NGON KWAN; 2nd Plaintiff: WENTY CHAN OI CHING; 3rd Plaintiff: MACASIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: KEVIN HSU SHANG; 2nd Defendant: HSU YU HWA; 3rd Defendant: RECORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2011
Case Number
HCA893/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (fraud/conspiracy/misappropriation) / Striking Out Application Heard in Chambers and Ruling
Outcome
Defendants' striking out application granted; claim struck out as an abuse of process for being time-barred
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Reflective Loss, Limitation Period (s26 Concealment), Striking Out for Lack of Particulars
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Limitation Law Fraud Equity Abuse of Process Reflective Loss Limitation Period (s26 Concealment) +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEPHEN NG NGON KWAN

1st Plaintiff

WENTY CHAN OI CHING

2nd Plaintiff

MACASIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

KEVIN HSU SHANG

1st Defendant

HSU YU HWA

2nd Defendant

RECORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (fraud/conspiracy/misappropriation) / Striking Out Application Heard in Chambers and Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance and whether s26 postpones limitation due to fraud/concealment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is impermissible reflective loss of the company
  3. 3 Whether lack of particulars for special damages warrants striking out

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleaded facts and evidence, an objective assessment shows the plaintiff either knew or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud by December 1987; s26 therefore does not postpone limitation; allowing the time-barred claim to proceed would be an abuse of process; accordingly the defendants' striking-out application is granted and the claim is struck out.

Court Disposition

Defendants' striking out application granted; claim struck out as an abuse of process for being time-barred

Orders

  • Defendants' application to strike out granted and the plaintiff's claim struck out
  • Claim of the 3rd Plaintiff struck out earlier for being a deregistered company