XU SHENGHENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG KWAN

XU SHENGHENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG KWAN

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court held that DI notices should be filed only when there is a presently exercisable interest in shares and that the applicant's contention that executory/contingent contracts require immediate DI filing was incorrect and could mislead; accordingly the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under section 14AA HCO.

Citation
XU SHENGHENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG KWAN
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Xu Shengheng; 2nd Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Ever Sincere Investment Limited; Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Cheung Kwan; 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Financial International Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Case Number
HCA291/2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Decision / Chambers Decision on Leave to Appeal Under Section 14 AA High Court Ordinance
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Interest (di) Notices, Leave to Appeal, Ex Parte Non‑disclosure, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Corporate Law Securities Regulation Civil Procedure Disclosure of Interest (di) Notices Leave to Appeal Ex Parte Non‑disclosure Summary Assessment of Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xu Shengheng

1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Ever Sincere Investment Limited

2nd Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Cheung Kwan

Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Financial International Holdings Limited

2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Decision / Chambers Decision on Leave to Appeal Under Section 14 AA High Court Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a DI notice must be filed for executory or contingent contracts to acquire shares
  2. 2 Whether there was material nondisclosure to the ex parte judge by the 1st plaintiff by counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success under section 14AA HCO

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court held that DI notices should be filed only when there is a presently exercisable interest in shares and that the applicant's contention that executory/contingent contracts require immediate DI filing was incorrect and could mislead; accordingly the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under section 14AA HCO.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4

Orders

  • Application dismissed under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4
  • Costs to the 1st plaintiff by counterclaim