WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND ANOTHER

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND ANOTHER

Urgent interim relief was refused because, applying the balance of fairness test, the applicant had knowledge of the Mainland proceedings yet did not participate or put forward evidence there, relied on multiple hearsay in his affidavits, and those factors meant urgency and fairness did not justify granting the injunction pending a substantive hearing.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 517
Parties
1st Plaintiff (in Both Cases): WANG LINPING; 2nd Plaintiff (in Both Cases): NIU LEI; 1st Defendant (hcmp 632/2012): HUANG KEQIN; 2nd Defendant (hcmp 632/2012); 1st Defendant (hca 373/2014): CHAN KIN SUN; 3rd Defendant (hcmp 632/2012); 2nd Defendant (hca 373/2014): GRANDSOME INDUSTRIAL LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 February 2019
Case Number
HCA373/2014
Procedural Posture
Company Litigation Under Companies Ordinance Ss100 and 348 and Inherent Jurisdiction; Interlocutory Summons for Interim Injunction / Inter Partes Summons for Urgent Interim Relief Refused; Adjourned to Substantive Hearing With Directions for Evidence
Outcome
Urgent interim relief refused; summons adjourned for substantive hearing with directions; parties to be heard on costs
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Balance of Fairness Test, Inherent Jurisdiction, Foreign Judgment Effects, Hearsay Evidence
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Private International Law Evidence Interim Relief Balance of Fairness Test Inherent Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WANG LINPING

1st Plaintiff (in Both Cases)

NIU LEI

2nd Plaintiff (in Both Cases)

HUANG KEQIN

1st Defendant (hcmp 632/2012)

CHAN KIN SUN

2nd Defendant (hcmp 632/2012); 1st Defendant (hca 373/2014)

GRANDSOME INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

3rd Defendant (hcmp 632/2012); 2nd Defendant (hca 373/2014)

Procedural Posture

Company Litigation Under Companies Ordinance Ss100 and 348 and Inherent Jurisdiction; Interlocutory Summons for Interim Injunction / Inter Partes Summons for Urgent Interim Relief Refused; Adjourned to Substantive Hearing With Directions for Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether urgent interim injunction should be granted under the balance of fairness test
  2. 2 Whether the Mainland Court judgment dated 22 January 2019 created urgency warranting interim relief in Hong Kong
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of hearsay and the effect of the applicant's failure to participate in the foreign proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Urgent interim relief was refused because, applying the balance of fairness test, the applicant had knowledge of the Mainland proceedings yet did not participate or put forward evidence there, relied on multiple hearsay in his affidavits, and those factors meant urgency and fairness did not justify granting the injunction pending a substantive hearing.

Court Disposition

Urgent interim relief refused; summons adjourned for substantive hearing with directions; parties to be heard on costs

Orders

  • Summons adjourned for substantive hearing to a date to be fixed with half day reserved
  • P1 and D2 to file evidence in response within 28 days from 8 February 2019