LAM PING WAN AND ANOTHER v. IP LAM ON

LAM PING WAN AND ANOTHER v. IP LAM ON

Because a sale of the shares before the Court of Appeal determines the appeal would render any successful appeal nugatory and the 1st Plaintiff asserts beneficial ownership that cannot be resolved at this stage, the court exercised its discretion to extend time for payment of the $15,000,000 ordered by Pang J. until the appeal is determined and adjourned the defendant's summons sine die with liberty to restore; the 1st Plaintiff's summons was dismissed as misconceived since the proper route is the Court of Appeal.

Citation
LAM PING WAN AND ANOTHER v. IP LAM ON
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LAM PING WAN; 2nd Plaintiff: SUN GROWTH SECURITIES LIMITED; Defendant: IP LAM ON
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 August 2000
Case Number
HCA12791/1999
Procedural Posture
Action in the Court of First Instance (civil) / Interlocutory / Chambers Application on Interim Fortification and Adjournment
Outcome
1st Plaintiff's summons dismissed; extension granted for compliance with Pang J.'s order until the Court of Appeal deals with the appeal; Defendant's summons adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Security for Fortification, Appeal Procedure, Adjournment, Sale of Shares
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Property Company Law Interim Relief Security for Fortification Appeal Procedure Adjournment +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAM PING WAN

1st Plaintiff

SUN GROWTH SECURITIES LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

IP LAM ON

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action in the Court of First Instance (civil) / Interlocutory / Chambers Application on Interim Fortification and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pang J.'s order for additional fortification should be stayed or extended pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Plaintiff's challenge to Pang J.'s order can be determined in this court or must be pursued in the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's summons for sale should proceed or be adjourned

Ratio Decidendi

Because a sale of the shares before the Court of Appeal determines the appeal would render any successful appeal nugatory and the 1st Plaintiff asserts beneficial ownership that cannot be resolved at this stage, the court exercised its discretion to extend time for payment of the $15,000,000 ordered by Pang J. until the appeal is determined and adjourned the defendant's summons sine die with liberty to restore; the 1st Plaintiff's summons was dismissed as misconceived since the proper route is the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

1st Plaintiff's summons dismissed; extension granted for compliance with Pang J.'s order until the Court of Appeal deals with the appeal; Defendant's summons adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.

Orders

  • Extend time for payment of $15,000,000 ordered by Pang J. until the result of the appeal
  • Adjourn the Defendant's summons sine die with liberty to restore after the Court of Appeal has dealt with the matter