SINOSTATE ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. KINGS PARADISE LTD AND OTHERS

SINOSTATE ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. KINGS PARADISE LTD AND OTHERS

The stay was lifted because the prospective appeals were bound to fail: RHC Order 5, Rule 6 precludes the Plaintiffs from prosecuting without legal representatives (or registrar's permission), a statutory derivative action cannot be used to bypass that rule, and the appeal against refusal of security for costs had no real prospect of success; given imminent trial dates it was therefore unjustified to maintain the stay and the Court revised the Unless Order with a short extension and allocated costs accordingly.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1903
Parties
1st Plaintiff: SINOSTATE ENTERPRISE LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: NATIONAL ENTERPRISES PACIFIC LIMITED (國豐企業(香港)有限公司); 3rd Plaintiff: SINO EDGE LIMITED (天實行實業有限公司); 1st Defendant: KINGS PARADISE LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: PAMELA MING CHU LEUNG also known as LEUNG MING CHU (梁明珠), also known as KAO LEUNG MING CHU; 3rd Defendant: LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄), administrator of the estate of LEUNG KONG (梁剛), deceased; 4th Defendant: LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄), sole executor of the estate of TSO YEE MAN (曹綺雯), deceased; 5th Defendant: LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄); 6th Defendant: CHEUNG HUI ZHU LIANG (梁慧珠); 7th Defendant: LUCY LAM also known as UNGAY JOPEN LUCY (吴露絲), also known as 梁颖珠; 8th Defendant: XIAO XIAO HONG (肖曉紅); 9th Defendant: TSO KWAI LAN (曹桂兰); 10th Defendant: LAM O. HEATHER; 11th Defendant: CHEUNG TINA; 12th Defendant: LAM YIU B. (林耀斌), also known as LAM YIU BUN, also known as LAM YIU BEN, also known as LAM YIU BIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Case Number
HCA1664/2020
Procedural Posture
Action (civil) / Interlocutory Paper Disposal (application to Lift Stay; Applications for Leave to Appeal; Directions)
Outcome
Application to lift stay granted; stay lifted with immediate effect; application for leave to appeal against refusal of security for costs refused; deadline in Unless Order extended; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Automatic Stay, Statutory Derivative Action, RHC Order 5 Rule 6 (representation), Unless Order, Striking Out for Non Representation, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Legal Aid Appeal Costs Management Automatic Stay Statutory Derivative Action RHC Order 5 Rule 6 (representation) +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SINOSTATE ENTERPRISE LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

NATIONAL ENTERPRISES PACIFIC LIMITED (國豐企業(香港)有限公司)

2nd Plaintiff

SINO EDGE LIMITED (天實行實業有限公司)

3rd Plaintiff

KINGS PARADISE LIMITED

1st Defendant

PAMELA MING CHU LEUNG also known as LEUNG MING CHU (梁明珠), also known as KAO LEUNG MING CHU

2nd Defendant

LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄), administrator of the estate of LEUNG KONG (梁剛), deceased

3rd Defendant

LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄), sole executor of the estate of TSO YEE MAN (曹綺雯), deceased

4th Defendant

LEUNG CHEUK HUNG (梁卓雄)

5th Defendant

CHEUNG HUI ZHU LIANG (梁慧珠)

6th Defendant

LUCY LAM also known as UNGAY JOPEN LUCY (吴露絲), also known as 梁颖珠

7th Defendant

XIAO XIAO HONG (肖曉紅)

8th Defendant

TSO KWAI LAN (曹桂兰)

9th Defendant

LAM O. HEATHER

10th Defendant

CHEUNG TINA

11th Defendant

LAM YIU B. (林耀斌), also known as LAM YIU BUN, also known as LAM YIU BEN, also known as LAM YIU BIN

12th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action (civil) / Interlocutory Paper Disposal (application to Lift Stay; Applications for Leave to Appeal; Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic stay imposed because of an applicant's legal aid application should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether appeals against the Unless Order and refusal to grant leave for a statutory derivative action have any real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a statutory derivative action can be used to circumvent RHC Order 5, Rule 6 representation requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was lifted because the prospective appeals were bound to fail: RHC Order 5, Rule 6 precludes the Plaintiffs from prosecuting without legal representatives (or registrar's permission), a statutory derivative action cannot be used to bypass that rule, and the appeal against refusal of security for costs had no real prospect of success; given imminent trial dates it was therefore unjustified to maintain the stay and the Court revised the Unless Order with a short extension and allocated costs accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application to lift stay granted; stay lifted with immediate effect; application for leave to appeal against refusal of security for costs refused; deadline in Unless Order extended; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • The automatic stay imposed by reason of Mr Kao's legal aid application is lifted with immediate effect.
  • Costs of the application to lift the stay will be in the cause.