MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

Mr Hao was found, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been in contempt by failing to comply with clear orders to transfer properties and deliver share certificates, there being no stay of execution in force; his partial and last‑minute acts did not amount to compliance and his non‑compliance was contumelious, therefore sentencing was required but adjourned to allow opportunity to purge contempt.

Citation
MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs: 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs (Mr Chan Man; Chan Ka); 1st Defendant: Mr Hao; 3rd Defendant: Mandas Real Estate Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2008
Case Number
HCA1216/2002
Procedural Posture
Contempt (committal) Proceedings / Committal Hearing; Sentencing Adjourned to 5 March 2008
Outcome
1st Defendant found guilty of contempt; sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Compliance With Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Transfer of Property, Delivery of Share Certificates
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgment Committal for Contempt Compliance With Court Orders Stay of Execution Transfer of Property Delivery of Share Certificates

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st and 2nd Plaintiffs (Mr Chan Man; Chan Ka)

Plaintiffs

Mr Hao

1st Defendant

Mandas Real Estate Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt (committal) Proceedings / Committal Hearing; Sentencing Adjourned to 5 March 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hao was in contempt for failing to comply with orders to transfer properties and deliver share certificates
  2. 2 Whether any stay pending appeal operated to suspend the orders
  3. 3 Whether partial or late acts by the defendant constituted compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hao was found, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been in contempt by failing to comply with clear orders to transfer properties and deliver share certificates, there being no stay of execution in force; his partial and last‑minute acts did not amount to compliance and his non‑compliance was contumelious, therefore sentencing was required but adjourned to allow opportunity to purge contempt.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant found guilty of contempt; sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Find 1st Defendant (Mr Hao) in contempt of court for non‑compliance with orders dated 17 August 2006
  • Adjourn sentencing to 5 March 2008 to allow defendant opportunity to propose steps to purge contempt