LIU LIGUANG v. DECADE TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER

LIU LIGUANG v. DECADE TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge below had not erred in law or in assessing the evidence: the evidence was not one‑way, the respondent raised plausible group treasury and set-off defences, mandatory injunctions posed a high risk of injustice and the balance of convenience did not favour the petitioner; therefore there were no reasonable prospects of success to justify appellate interference with the judge's discretion.

Citation
LIU LIGUANG v. DECADE TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Liu Liguang; Respondent: Great Master Technology Ltd; Respondent: Decade Technology Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 January 2012
Case Number
HCMP1941/2011
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition (section 327(3)(c) Companies Ordinance) and Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunctions (chambers)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Interlocutory Injunction, Mandatory Injunction, Leave to Appeal, Fiduciary Duties, Misfeasance, Set Off, Jurisdiction to Grant Injunctions in Winding Up
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Equity Civil Procedure Remedies Winding Up Interlocutory Injunction Mandatory Injunction +5 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liu Liguang

Petitioner

Great Master Technology Ltd

Respondent

Decade Technology Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition (section 327(3)(c) Companies Ordinance) and Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunctions (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against refusal of interlocutory injunctions
  2. 2 Whether mandatory and prohibitory interlocutory injunctions should be granted in the context of a winding-up petition under s327(3)(c) of Cap 32
  3. 3 Whether the Entrustment Loan Agreement and loans to Heyuan were unauthorised misfeasance by nominees of Great Master

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge below had not erred in law or in assessing the evidence: the evidence was not one‑way, the respondent raised plausible group treasury and set-off defences, mandatory injunctions posed a high risk of injustice and the balance of convenience did not favour the petitioner; therefore there were no reasonable prospects of success to justify appellate interference with the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to Great Master
  • Costs to be assessed on a gross sum basis