CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Applicants failed to demonstrate significant change in circumstances or realistic doubts about the plaintiff’s ability to honour the cross-undertaking; age and market fluctuations without evidence of incapacity or sharp decline since 2017 are insufficient; plaintiff’s unencumbered Park Haven property provides adequate cover, therefore no further fortification is required.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3694
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action): CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA; 1st Defendant (original Action): CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM; 2nd Defendant (original Action): B M C DECORATION LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (original Action): BMC HOLDINGS (INT’L) LIMITED; 4th Defendant (original Action): BMC CONSTRUCTION CENTRE LIMITED; 5th Defendant (original Action): YEUNG CHAU OI; 6th Defendant (original Action): DOUBLE HUGE INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 7th Defendant (original Action): LAU KWOK WAI; 8th Defendant (original Action): HUANG HSIU YU; 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM; 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): B M C DECORATION LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim): BMC HOLDINGS (INT’L) LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff (counterclaim): BMC CONSTRUCTION CENTRE LIMITED; 5th Plaintiff (counterclaim): BMC STRATEGIC PARTNERS (INT’L) LIMITED; 6th Plaintiff (counterclaim): TALENT EXPRESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED; Defendant (counterclaim): CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 December 2024
Case Number
HCA652/2017
Procedural Posture
Original Action (injunction) With Counterclaim / Decision on Summons for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking (chambers)
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Fortification of Cross Undertaking, Change of Circumstances, Ability to Satisfy Undertaking, Rental Loss, Property Market Fluctuations
Source Language
EN
Injunctions Civil Procedure Property Law Company Law Remedies Fortification of Cross Undertaking Change of Circumstances Ability to Satisfy Undertaking +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA

Plaintiff (original Action)

CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM

1st Defendant (original Action)

B M C DECORATION LIMITED

2nd Defendant (original Action)

BMC HOLDINGS (INT’L) LIMITED

3rd Defendant (original Action)

BMC CONSTRUCTION CENTRE LIMITED

4th Defendant (original Action)

YEUNG CHAU OI

5th Defendant (original Action)

DOUBLE HUGE INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

6th Defendant (original Action)

LAU KWOK WAI

7th Defendant (original Action)

HUANG HSIU YU

8th Defendant (original Action)

CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM

1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

B M C DECORATION LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

BMC HOLDINGS (INT’L) LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

BMC CONSTRUCTION CENTRE LIMITED

4th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

BMC STRATEGIC PARTNERS (INT’L) LIMITED

5th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

TALENT EXPRESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED

6th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Original Action (injunction) With Counterclaim / Decision on Summons for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants (7th and 8th Defendants) have shown a significant change in circumstances or compelling grounds to justify further fortification of the plaintiff’s cross-undertaking as to damages
  2. 2 Whether there are realistic doubts about the plaintiff’s ability to honour the undertaking
  3. 3 Whether alleged loss (fall in property values and lost rental income) establishes likelihood of significant loss to justify additional security

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to demonstrate significant change in circumstances or realistic doubts about the plaintiff’s ability to honour the cross-undertaking; age and market fluctuations without evidence of incapacity or sharp decline since 2017 are insufficient; plaintiff’s unencumbered Park Haven property provides adequate cover, therefore no further fortification is required.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs of and incidental to the Summons to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed