JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: he did not establish prima facie that the 3rd defendant was controlled by the alleged wrongdoers or that trustees were biased, and statutory remedy (s114B Companies Ordinance) existed to reconstitute the board; the personal claim required no declaration as director status was undisputed.

Citation
JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Jonathan Lim; 1st Defendant: She Wai Hung; 2nd Defendant: She Siu Pang; 3rd Defendant: Golden Bright Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 December 2010
Case Number
HCA391/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Shareholder/derivative Action; Summary Judgment Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 14 AA High Court Ordinance Following Dismissal of Summary Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs; matter certified fit for one counsel.
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Conflict of Interest of Trustees, Board Reconstitution Under Companies Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Derivative Action Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Conflict of Interest of Trustees Board Reconstitution Under Companies Ordinance

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Lim

Plaintiff

She Wai Hung

1st Defendant

She Siu Pang

2nd Defendant

Golden Bright Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Shareholder/derivative Action; Summary Judgment Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 14 AA High Court Ordinance Following Dismissal of Summary Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to bring a derivative action on behalf of the 3rd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd defendant is under the control of the alleged wrongdoers so as to displace the proper plaintiff rule
  3. 3 Whether the trustees in bankruptcy are conflicted or biased such that they improperly refuse to support the derivative action

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: he did not establish prima facie that the 3rd defendant was controlled by the alleged wrongdoers or that trustees were biased, and statutory remedy (s114B Companies Ordinance) existed to reconstitute the board; the personal claim required no declaration as director status was undisputed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs; matter certified fit for one counsel.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Matter certified fit for one counsel