CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND OTHERS

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND OTHERS

s14AA(1) was not engaged because the defendants were entitled as of right to appeal and the Order did not prevent them from advancing the locus/challenge on appeal; furthermore O 59 r 21 provides that leave is unnecessary for appeals against refusal to permit amendment of pleadings to introduce a new defence; additionally D2 had no entitlement to appeal the Order as it was issued by D1&3 and D2 was not a participant at the hearing.

Citation
CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: CHEUNG HING; 1st Defendant: WONG CHOR CHEUNG; 2nd Defendant: BEST CENTURY HOLDINGS LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Case Number
HCA925/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (property Dispute With Derivative Elements) / Post Judgment Interlocutory Applications; Appeals Filed and Pending
Outcome
Summonses dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff; costs allocation for other summonses ordered
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Leave to Appeal (s14 AA High Court Ordinance), Locus Standi, Sham Transaction/alter Ego, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Derivative Action Leave to Appeal (s14 AA High Court Ordinance) Locus Standi Sham Transaction/alter Ego +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEUNG HING

Plaintiff

WONG CHOR CHEUNG

1st Defendant

BEST CENTURY HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (property Dispute With Derivative Elements) / Post Judgment Interlocutory Applications; Appeals Filed and Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s14AA(1) High Court Ordinance applies to the Deputy High Court Judge's interlocutory Order of 13 March 2014
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled as of right to appeal the Judgment and whether the Order inhibits their ability to do so
  3. 3 Whether D1&3 should have leave to amend their Defence to plead locus to bring a common law derivative action on behalf of D3

Ratio Decidendi

s14AA(1) was not engaged because the defendants were entitled as of right to appeal and the Order did not prevent them from advancing the locus/challenge on appeal; furthermore O 59 r 21 provides that leave is unnecessary for appeals against refusal to permit amendment of pleadings to introduce a new defence; additionally D2 had no entitlement to appeal the Order as it was issued by D1&3 and D2 was not a participant at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Summonses dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff; costs allocation for other summonses ordered

Orders

  • The 10 June 2014 and 12 June 2014 Summonses (the applications) are dismissed with costs to the plaintiff Cheung HING
  • The costs of and occasioned by the other three Summonses dated 17 March 2014, 26 March 2014 and 17 April 2014 are to be paid by the parties on whose behalf they were issued