CHI, DONG EUN v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

CHI, DONG EUN v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner lacked the requisite locus to present a winding up petition under s.179(1)(a)(ii) (he had not held the requisite shareholding for the statutory period) and the circumstances demonstrated a prima facie abuse of process; accordingly the petition must be struck out and costs awarded against the petitioner.

Citation
CHI, DONG EUN v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Chi, Dong Eun; 1st Respondent: L & A International Holdings Limited; 2nd Respondent: Ng Ka Ho; 3rd Respondent: Wong Chiu Po; 4th Respondent: Kwong Lun Kei Victor; 5th Respondent: Ma Chi Ming; 6th Respondent: Chan Ming Sun Jonathan; 7th Respondent: Yang Si Hang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Case Number
HCCW2/2017
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition (companies) / Decision on Strike Out Applications (chambers)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Winding Up, Locus Standi Under S.179(1)(a)(ii), Strike Out, Improper Joinder, Maintenance and Champerty, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Securities Regulation Criminal Law Abuse of Process Just and Equitable Winding Up Locus Standi Under S.179(1)(a)(ii) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chi, Dong Eun

Petitioner

L & A International Holdings Limited

1st Respondent

Ng Ka Ho

2nd Respondent

Wong Chiu Po

3rd Respondent

Kwong Lun Kei Victor

4th Respondent

Ma Chi Ming

5th Respondent

Chan Ming Sun Jonathan

6th Respondent

Yang Si Hang

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition (companies) / Decision on Strike Out Applications (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner had locus to present winding up petition (s.179(1)(a)(ii))
  2. 2 Whether affirmations without address affect admissibility (O 41 r 1(4))
  3. 3 Whether the petition is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner lacked the requisite locus to present a winding up petition under s.179(1)(a)(ii) (he had not held the requisite shareholding for the statutory period) and the circumstances demonstrated a prima facie abuse of process; accordingly the petition must be struck out and costs awarded against the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Costs to 1st–6th Respondents to be paid by the Petitioner; taxed on indemnity basis if not agreed