YEUNG SIU MING v. MAN LUNG TEXTILES LTD AND OTHERS

YEUNG SIU MING v. MAN LUNG TEXTILES LTD AND OTHERS

On the pleaded facts the petitioner had sold all his shares on 30 January 2015 and therefore was not a member at the time of presentation and did not meet the six‑month holding requirement in section 179(1)(a)(ii); the petition was therefore incompetent and must be struck out; the respondent only needed to discharge an evidential burden, which was done.

Citation
YEUNG SIU MING v. MAN LUNG TEXTILES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Yeung Siu Ming; 1st Respondent: Man Shing Textiles Limited; 2nd Respondent: Tam Tak Yam; 3rd Respondent: Tang Siu Choi
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Case Number
HCCW426/2016
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance / Application to Strike Out Petition (in Chambers Decision)
Outcome
Petition struck out for want of locus standi
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Abuse of Process, Validation Order, Register of Members, Standing to Petition
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Abuse of Process Validation Order Register of Members Standing to Petition

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

Parties

Yeung Siu Ming

Petitioner

Man Shing Textiles Limited

1st Respondent

Tam Tak Yam

2nd Respondent

Tang Siu Choi

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance / Application to Strike Out Petition (in Chambers Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner had locus standi to present a winding-up petition under section 179(1)
  2. 2 Whether the petition constituted an abuse of the court's process
  3. 3 Allocation of legal and evidential burdens when locus standi is challenged

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleaded facts the petitioner had sold all his shares on 30 January 2015 and therefore was not a member at the time of presentation and did not meet the six‑month holding requirement in section 179(1)(a)(ii); the petition was therefore incompetent and must be struck out; the respondent only needed to discharge an evidential burden, which was done.

Court Disposition

Petition struck out for want of locus standi

Orders

  • Petition struck out
  • Costs against the Petitioner to be paid to the 2nd Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed