CHAN CHUN HOO v. WADDINGTON LTD
- Citation
- CHAN CHUN HOO v. WADDINGTON LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 4 June 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal) / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMV16/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 4 June 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal) / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMV16/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Leave to appeal was granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance but confined to the first two questions in para.10 (the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues); leave was refused in respect of the third question.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted in part
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s.22(1)(b) limited to the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues.
- Refuse leave to appeal as to the third question in para.10 of the Notice of Motion.
02
Material facts
Parties
CHAN CHUN HOO
Applicant Counsel: Mr Victor Joffe QC; Mr Martin Lee SC; Mr Hector Pun (instructed by Messrs Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong)WADDINGTON LIMITED (Suing on behalf of itself and all other shareholders in PLAYMATES HOLDINGS LIMITED except the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants)
Respondent Counsel: Mr Benjamin Yu SC; Miss Eva Sit (instructed by Messrs Kao, Lee & Yip)03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal) / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.22(1)(b) as a question of great general or public importance
- 02
Whether the reflective loss doctrine precludes the applicant's claim
- 03
Whether a multiple derivative action is maintainable in the circumstances
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant applied for leave to appeal on three questions set out in para.10 of the Notice of Motion, seeking leave in particular on the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues.
- Respondent
- Respondent opposed the grant of leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Leave to appeal requires a question of great general or public importance
- 02
Common law/company law
The reflective loss doctrine bars shareholders from recovering losses that are merely reflective of losses suffered by the company
- 03
Company law principles
Multiple derivative action permits shareholder-initiated claims on behalf of the company or other shareholders in limited circumstances
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance but confined to the first two questions in para.10 (the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues); leave was refused in respect of the third question.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted in part
- Grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s.22(1)(b) limited to the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues.
- Refuse leave to appeal as to the third question in para.10 of the Notice of Motion.
Source and reliance status
Court of Final Appeal · 4 June 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Final Appeal
Judgment· 4 June 2007
bjbj FAMV No. 16 of 2007
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 16 OF 2007 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 220 OF 2005) _____ Between:
CHAN CHUN HOO Applicant - and -
WADDINGTON LIMITED (Suing on behalf of itself and all other shareholders in PLAYMATES HOLDINGS LIMITED except the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants) Respondent _____ Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 4 June 2007 Date of Determination: 4 June 2007
D E T E R M I N A T I O N Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : We grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under the question of great general or public importance limb of s.22(1)(b) of the Court s statute, doing so in regard to the first two questions set out in para.10 of the applicant s Notice of Motion but not in regard to the third question set out in that paragraph. In other words, the leave which we grant is confined to the reflective loss and multiple derivative action issues. (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (RAV Ribeiro) Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr Victor Joffe QC, Mr Martin Lee SC and Mr Hectar Pun (instructed by Messrs Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong) for the applicant Mr Benjamin Yu SC and Miss Eva Sit (instructed by Messrs Kao, Lee & Yip) for the respondent
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.