MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD v. SINOPOLY BATTERY LTD

MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD v. SINOPOLY BATTERY LTD

Leave to discontinue the counterclaim was refused because Mei Li had not shown good reason for withdrawing a more advanced counterclaim in order to pursue a duplicate action; clause 11 did not require prior written notice to complete the cause of action, the alleged defect could be cured by amendment, and permitting the 2012 Action would cause multiplicity and waste judicial resources; accordingly the 2012 Action was struck out.

Citation
MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD v. SINOPOLY BATTERY LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: QIYANG LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: THUNDER SKY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff / Defendant in HCA 1071/2012: SINOPOLY BATTERY LIMITED; 1st Defendant / Plaintiff in HCA 1071/2012: MEI LI NEW ENERGY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHUNG HING KA; 3rd Defendant: 深圳市雷天电源技朮有限公司; 4th Defendant: 深圳市雷天电动车动力总成有限公司; 5th Defendant: THUNDER SKY BATTERY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; 6th Defendant: NEW BILLION INVESTIMENTS LIMITED; 7th Defendant: 雷天绿色电动源（深圳）有限公司; Third Party: MIAO ZHENGUO（苗振国）
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 August 2012
Case Number
HCA1071/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Dispute (convertible Bond Redemption) / Interlocutory Applications: Application for Leave to Discontinue Counterclaim and Summons to Strike Out Statement of Claim
Outcome
Refused Mei Li's application for leave to discontinue the counterclaim; struck out HCA 1071/2012 (the 2012 Action)
Legal Topics
Convertible Bond, Redemption, Leave to Discontinue, Striking Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company/commercial Law Case Management Convertible Bond Redemption Leave to Discontinue Striking Out +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QIYANG LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

THUNDER SKY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SINOPOLY BATTERY LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff / Defendant in HCA 1071/2012

MEI LI NEW ENERGY LIMITED

1st Defendant / Plaintiff in HCA 1071/2012

CHUNG HING KA

2nd Defendant

深圳市雷天电源技朮有限公司

3rd Defendant

深圳市雷天电动车动力总成有限公司

4th Defendant

THUNDER SKY BATTERY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

5th Defendant

NEW BILLION INVESTIMENTS LIMITED

6th Defendant

雷天绿色电动源（深圳）有限公司

7th Defendant

MIAO ZHENGUO（苗振国）

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Dispute (convertible Bond Redemption) / Interlocutory Applications: Application for Leave to Discontinue Counterclaim and Summons to Strike Out Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to discontinue the counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the separate 2012 Action should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether clause 11 of the convertible bond requires prior written notice to complete the cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to discontinue the counterclaim was refused because Mei Li had not shown good reason for withdrawing a more advanced counterclaim in order to pursue a duplicate action; clause 11 did not require prior written notice to complete the cause of action, the alleged defect could be cured by amendment, and permitting the 2012 Action would cause multiplicity and waste judicial resources; accordingly the 2012 Action was struck out.

Court Disposition

Refused Mei Li's application for leave to discontinue the counterclaim; struck out HCA 1071/2012 (the 2012 Action)

Orders

  • Leave to discontinue the counterclaim refused
  • Action HCA 1071/2012 struck out