JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
The court found a triable dispute that the plaintiff lacked clear entitlement to bring a derivative action because the trustees controlling the majority shares were not shown to be acting improperly; the matters complained of could be resolved by an ordinary majority and damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff personally. Accordingly summary judgment and interim relief were refused and the plaintiff's summary application dismissed, with a costs order nisi against him. The court accepted undertakings by the 1st and 2nd defendants restraining them from representing themselves as officers of the company until trial.
- Citation
- JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Plaintiff (suing on Behalf of Himself and Other Shareholders of 3rd Defendant Except She Wai Hung): Jonathan Lim; 1st Defendant: She Wai Hung; 2nd Defendant: She Siu Pang; 3rd Defendant: Golden Bright Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 6 December 2010
- Case Number
- HCA391/2010
- Procedural Posture
- Company/shareholder Dispute (derivative and Personal) / Summary Judgment Application (interlocutory)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for summary judgment dismissed; no summary declarations or injunctions granted; costs order nisi against plaintiff; court accepted undertakings by 1st and 2nd defendants restraining them from holding out or acting as directors/representatives/secretary until trial or further order.
- Legal Topics
- Derivative Action, Locus Standi, Articles of Association Enforcement, Interim Injunctions, Summary Judgment, Company Meetings Quorum
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jonathan Lim
Plaintiff (suing on Behalf of Himself and Other Shareholders of 3rd Defendant Except She Wai Hung)
She Wai Hung
1st Defendant
She Siu Pang
2nd Defendant
Golden Bright Limited
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Company/shareholder Dispute (derivative and Personal) / Summary Judgment Application (interlocutory)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff (holder of 1 out of 10,000 shares) has locus standi to bring a derivative action on behalf of the 3rd defendant
- 2 Whether the purported appointments of the 1st and 2nd defendants as directors and company secretary were valid
- 3 Whether the plaintiff can bring a personal action to enforce rights under the company constitution (Companies Ordinance s23)
Ratio Decidendi
The court found a triable dispute that the plaintiff lacked clear entitlement to bring a derivative action because the trustees controlling the majority shares were not shown to be acting improperly; the matters complained of could be resolved by an ordinary majority and damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff personally. Accordingly summary judgment and interim relief were refused and the plaintiff's summary application dismissed, with a costs order nisi against him. The court accepted undertakings by the 1st and 2nd defendants restraining them from representing themselves as officers of the company until trial.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for summary judgment dismissed; no summary declarations or injunctions granted; costs order nisi against plaintiff; court accepted undertakings by 1st and 2nd defendants restraining them from holding out or acting as directors/representatives/secretary until trial or further order.
Orders
- Summary judgment application dismissed
- Costs order nisi: plaintiff to pay 1st and 2nd defendants' costs of the application forthwith
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment