ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD 對 ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING COMPANY LTD

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD 對 ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING COMPANY LTD

The Court refused leave because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: by filing an affidavit and appearing and opposing the application he submitted to the jurisdiction; his new factual assertions were late and inconsistent with earlier affidavits; language assistance was provided and no formal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 500
Parties
Original Plaintiff: ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; Original Defendant: ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED; First Counterclaim Plaintiff: CLARIGAIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED; Second Counterclaim Plaintiff: BAI JUN TIAN CHENG LIMITED; Second Counterclaim Defendant: ANGOLA GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; Third Counterclaim Defendant: ZHAO BING; Fourth Counterclaim Defendant: NG CHI KONG; Applicant for Leave/respondent for Costs: ZENG WEI
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 May 2024
Case Number
CAMP261/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Decision Under Order 62 R6 a / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application (decision Without Oral Hearing Under O.59 R2 A)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Order 62 R6 a Procedure, Service Validity, Use of Language, Abuse of Process, Costs Assessment
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Service of Process Language Rights Costs Leave to Appeal Order 62 R6 a Procedure Service Validity +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

Original Plaintiff

ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED

Original Defendant

CLARIGAIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED

First Counterclaim Plaintiff

BAI JUN TIAN CHENG LIMITED

Second Counterclaim Plaintiff

ANGOLA GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED

Second Counterclaim Defendant

ZHAO BING

Third Counterclaim Defendant

NG CHI KONG

Fourth Counterclaim Defendant

ZENG WEI

Applicant for Leave/respondent for Costs

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From High Court Decision Under Order 62 R6 a / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application (decision Without Oral Hearing Under O.59 R2 A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction given alleged defective service
  2. 2 Whether refusal to hear in Chinese or lack of Chinese translations denied a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Order 62 r6A first-stage enquiry requires consideration of financial capacity or ownership interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: by filing an affidavit and appearing and opposing the application he submitted to the jurisdiction; his new factual assertions were late and inconsistent with earlier affidavits; language assistance was provided and no formal translation request was made under the rules; financial capacity and shareholding issues are addressing the second-stage of an Order 62 r6A application and are not relevant to the threshold. Accordingly the appeal was not arguable and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons dated 25 July 2023 is set aside
  • Zeng Wei to pay the first and second counterclaimants costs assessed under the simplified procedure in the sum of HKD100,000