PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal as of right was refused because the value of the claim (shares in Blinco BVI and Patagonia) could not be clearly quantified at HK$1,000,000 or more without further complex adjudication; concurrent factual findings that the Takeover Arrangement was fabricated, that Hu controlled the corporate network and that the shares and underlying assets were diverted in breach of fiduciary duty justified imposition of constructive trusts and piercing of the corporate veil; accordingly leave on discretionary grounds was also refused.

Citation
PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LIMITED; 8th Defendant (applicant): HU HUNG CHIU; 22nd Defendant (applicant): TOP SELECTION COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Case Number
FAMV8/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal From Court of Appeal Final Judgment
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Piercing Corporate Veil, Leave to Appeal as of Right Under S22(1)(a), Valuation of Shares, Burden of Proof, Fraudulent Transfer
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Trusts Fiduciary Duties Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Piercing Corporate Veil Leave to Appeal as of Right Under S22(1)(a) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff (respondent)

HU HUNG CHIU

8th Defendant (applicant)

TOP SELECTION COMPANY LIMITED

22nd Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal From Court of Appeal Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal lies as of right under section 22(1)(a) having a claim to property or civil right of value $1,000,000 or more
  2. 2 Whether the alleged Takeover Arrangement existed or was a fabricated device
  3. 3 Whether assets and shares held through a corporate network are held on constructive trust for the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal as of right was refused because the value of the claim (shares in Blinco BVI and Patagonia) could not be clearly quantified at HK$1,000,000 or more without further complex adjudication; concurrent factual findings that the Takeover Arrangement was fabricated, that Hu controlled the corporate network and that the shares and underlying assets were diverted in breach of fiduciary duty justified imposition of constructive trusts and piercing of the corporate veil; accordingly leave on discretionary grounds was also refused.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi that the applicants pay the costs of and occasioned by this application; any submissions as to costs to be lodged within seven days or the order will become absolute