DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS

DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS

The court refused to amend the prior order or engagement letter because the matters raised were or could have been raised earlier and there was no substantive need to alter the terms; valuers are not obliged to obtain additional valuations at this late stage where prior valuations exist; inspection rights remain limited as per the 2007 consent order; costs of the applications are payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner on a party-and-party basis.

Citation
DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Pine Development Limited; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 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
HCCW321/2006
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) No. 322 of 2006 / Application to Amend Prior Court Order/engagement Letter (hearing)
Outcome
Mr Coleman's summonses dismissed; Respondents directed to sign the engagement letter within three days; Respondents ordered to pay Petitioner's costs of the applications on a party-and-party basis.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Valuers, Engagement Letter, Inspection of Documents, Amendment of Orders, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Appointment of Valuers Engagement Letter Inspection of Documents Amendment of Orders Costs

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pine Development Limited

Petitioner

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

DONG FUNG HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Respondent

CHAN KIN

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) No. 322 of 2006 / Application to Amend Prior Court Order/engagement Letter (hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should amend its prior order and the valuers' engagement letter
  2. 2 Whether valuers are obliged to procure additional valuations years after initial valuations
  3. 3 Scope of Petitioner's inspection rights over documents provided to valuers

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to amend the prior order or engagement letter because the matters raised were or could have been raised earlier and there was no substantive need to alter the terms; valuers are not obliged to obtain additional valuations at this late stage where prior valuations exist; inspection rights remain limited as per the 2007 consent order; costs of the applications are payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner on a party-and-party basis.

Court Disposition

Mr Coleman's summonses dismissed; Respondents directed to sign the engagement letter within three days; Respondents ordered to pay Petitioner's costs of the applications on a party-and-party basis.

Orders

  • Dismiss Mr Coleman's summonses.
  • Respondents to sign the engagement letter within three days.