TAM KAM MAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHIN SHING AND ANOTHER

TAM KAM MAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHIN SHING AND ANOTHER

On the balance of fairness and in absence of contrary evidence, and given the need to preserve D2's operations and employees' interests, the court granted limited interim-interim relief narrowly tailored to what was necessary: restraining the 1st defendant from taking steps to effect removal of the plaintiffs as directors or promulgating related notices/rumours, and restraining the 1st defendant from changing authorised signatories on D2's bank accounts; broader and vague relief was not granted pending further evidence and precise wording to be agreed/heard.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 767
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tam Kam Man; 2nd Plaintiff: Yeung Ka Kit Andy; 1st Defendant: Chan Chin Shing; 2nd Defendant: Lee Shing Marble Engineering Co Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Case Number
HCA352/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interlocutory Injunction Application (first Hearing on Summons Day)
Outcome
Partial interim-interim injunctions granted; matter adjourned for substantive hearing with directions to file further evidence; parties to be heard on precise wording of orders
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Service of Process, Directors' Duties and Removal, Bank Signatory Control, Access to Company Documents and Accounts, Balance of Fairness Test
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity and Trusts Injunctions Employment Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Service of Process Directors' Duties and Removal +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tam Kam Man

1st Plaintiff

Yeung Ka Kit Andy

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Chin Shing

1st Defendant

Lee Shing Marble Engineering Co Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interlocutory Injunction Application (first Hearing on Summons Day)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether service on the 2nd defendant was properly effected
  2. 2 whether to grant limited interim-interim injunctions under the balance of fairness test
  3. 3 whether the pleaded injunctions were too vague and overbroad to grant

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of fairness and in absence of contrary evidence, and given the need to preserve D2's operations and employees' interests, the court granted limited interim-interim relief narrowly tailored to what was necessary: restraining the 1st defendant from taking steps to effect removal of the plaintiffs as directors or promulgating related notices/rumours, and restraining the 1st defendant from changing authorised signatories on D2's bank accounts; broader and vague relief was not granted pending further evidence and precise wording to be agreed/heard.

Court Disposition

Partial interim-interim injunctions granted; matter adjourned for substantive hearing with directions to file further evidence; parties to be heard on precise wording of orders

Orders

  • Matter adjourned for substantive hearing with directions on filing further evidence
  • Interim-interim order restraining the 1st defendant from filing, causing to be filed, or circulating notices or representations claiming the plaintiffs have resigned or been removed as directors of the 2nd defendant and from spreading related rumours (paragraphs 6(3) and 7 of the summons) pending further order