CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

The court granted the short adjournment to 30 November 2009 because the substantial discrepancy between competing valuations rendered further valuation evidence potentially material to the balance of convenience and to any undertaking for damages; the court declined to impose payment into court as a condition of that brief adjournment as being unduly draconian.

Citation
CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS AND ANOTHER v. MILLION VISION INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS; 2nd Plaintiff: ASIA SPECIAL SITUATIONS GCI LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MILLION VISION INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: STAR ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Case Number
HCMP2227/2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (commercial/equity) / Application to Adjourn Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction and to Move Proceedings to the Commercial List
Outcome
Adjournment granted; matter to be heard before the Commercial Court on 30 November 2009 at 9:30am; limited costs order made
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Redemption, Call Option, Valuation Dispute, Transfer of Shares, Undertaking for Damages
Source Language
EN
Commercial Law Equity Company Law Property Law Injunctions Interlocutory Injunction Redemption Call Option +3 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEUNG TSUN YUNG, THOMAS

1st Plaintiff

ASIA SPECIAL SITUATIONS GCI LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

MILLION VISION INVESTMENTS LIMITED

1st Defendant

STAR ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (commercial/equity) / Application to Adjourn Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction and to Move Proceedings to the Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a short adjournment should be granted to obtain further valuation evidence
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' failure to tender payment defeats claims for redemption or exercise of the call option
  3. 3 Whether payment into court should be imposed as a condition of adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the short adjournment to 30 November 2009 because the substantial discrepancy between competing valuations rendered further valuation evidence potentially material to the balance of convenience and to any undertaking for damages; the court declined to impose payment into court as a condition of that brief adjournment as being unduly draconian.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; matter to be heard before the Commercial Court on 30 November 2009 at 9:30am; limited costs order made

Orders

  • Hearing of summons issued on 30 October 2009 adjourned to 30 November 2009 at 9:30 before the Commercial Court
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the application to adjourn save that defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of today's argument