HO WONG MARY MEE TAK AND ANOTHER v. WONG SHIK HO TONG AND OTHERS

HO WONG MARY MEE TAK AND ANOTHER v. WONG SHIK HO TONG AND OTHERS

The court held the reference to the Companies Ordinance in the title was an error that did not vitiate jurisdiction, there was no material non-disclosure that would have defeated the grant of the ex parte order, the injunction was properly incident to substantive relief, and because the operative acts occurred in Hong Kong the Hong Kong courts were the natural forum; accordingly the ex parte injunction was not discharged and the application to strike out or stay was dismissed; costs allocated as directed.

Citation
HO WONG MARY MEE TAK AND ANOTHER v. WONG SHIK HO TONG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HO WONG MARY MEE TAK; 2nd Plaintiff: PC PARTNER HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: WONG SHIK HO TONG; 2nd Defendant: WONG FONG PAK; 3rd Defendant: LEUNG WAH KAN; 4th Defendant: H K I C CONSULTANTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Case Number
HCMP1853/2005
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Companies/derivative/unfair Prejudice Matters / Chambers Hearing on Interlocutory Summonses (stay, Strike Out, Discharge of Injunction, Costs)
Outcome
Summonses to strike out or stay dismissed; ex parte injunction expired on return day and was not discharged; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Injunction, Stay for Forum Non Conveniens, Strike Out, Costs, Jurisdiction, Service, Disclosure, Share Allotment/dilution, Articles Arbitration Clause
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Private International Law Arbitration Ex Parte Injunction Stay for Forum Non Conveniens Strike Out +6 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO WONG MARY MEE TAK

1st Plaintiff

PC PARTNER HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

WONG SHIK HO TONG

1st Defendant

WONG FONG PAK

2nd Defendant

LEUNG WAH KAN

3rd Defendant

H K I C CONSULTANTS LIMITED

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Companies/derivative/unfair Prejudice Matters / Chambers Hearing on Interlocutory Summonses (stay, Strike Out, Discharge of Injunction, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant injunctions given the 2nd plaintiff is a BVI company
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure in support of the ex parte application
  3. 3 Whether the 1st plaintiff had locus/standing to obtain the relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the reference to the Companies Ordinance in the title was an error that did not vitiate jurisdiction, there was no material non-disclosure that would have defeated the grant of the ex parte order, the injunction was properly incident to substantive relief, and because the operative acts occurred in Hong Kong the Hong Kong courts were the natural forum; accordingly the ex parte injunction was not discharged and the application to strike out or stay was dismissed; costs allocated as directed.

Court Disposition

Summonses to strike out or stay dismissed; ex parte injunction expired on return day and was not discharged; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Two plaintiff summonses withdrawn with costs to the 1st to 3rd defendants in any event
  • Plaintiffs' third summons to amend (deleting 1st plaintiff and removing Companies Ordinance references) consented to; costs to 3 defendants in any event