CHAU HUNG KAU v. TEXGAR LTD. AND OTHERS

CHAU HUNG KAU v. TEXGAR LTD. AND OTHERS

Given prima facie evidence of diversion, false affidavits, failure to comply with injunctions, inadequate disclosure and risk of asset dissipation, it was just and convenient to appoint joint receivers over the assets of the 1st and 3rd respondents pending trial to collect debts and receive assets, require payment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAU HUNG KAU v. TEXGAR LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Chau Hung Kau; 1st Respondent: Texgar Limited; 2nd Respondent: Tsui King Yeung; 3rd Respondent: Texgar (Holdings) Limited; 4th Respondent: Guangzhou Texgar Electronics Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 2001
Case Number
HCMP1372/2000
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance S.168 a Minority Shareholder Petition / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers Pending Trial
Outcome
Application granted: joint and several receivers appointed over assets of 1st and 3rd respondents pending trial.
Legal Topics
Minority Shareholder Relief, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation of Assets, Garnishee Order, Constructive Trust, Contempt, Disclosure
Source Language
en
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Injunctions Receivership Minority Shareholder Relief Breach of Fiduciary Duty Misappropriation of Assets +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chau Hung Kau

Petitioner

Texgar Limited

1st Respondent

Tsui King Yeung

2nd Respondent

Texgar (Holdings) Limited

3rd Respondent

Guangzhou Texgar Electronics Company Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance S.168 a Minority Shareholder Petition / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim receivers should be appointed to protect company assets pending trial under the High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there is prima facie evidence of collusive/fraudulent conduct and nondisclosure justifying receivership
  3. 3 Whether appointment over the 3rd respondent is necessary despite assertions of impecuniosity

Ratio Decidendi

Given prima facie evidence of diversion, false affidavits, failure to comply with injunctions, inadequate disclosure and risk of asset dissipation, it was just and convenient to appoint joint receivers over the assets of the 1st and 3rd respondents pending trial to collect debts and receive assets, require payment into court of HK$3,993,958.31, and to impose security and remuneration arrangements to protect the petitioner's interests.

Court Disposition

Application granted: joint and several receivers appointed over assets of 1st and 3rd respondents pending trial.

Orders

  • Appointment of Nicholas Timothy Cornforth Hill and Wong Tak Man, Stephen of Nelson Wheeler Corporate Advisory Services Limited as joint and several receivers of the assets of the 1st and 3rd Respondents until trial or further order
  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to execute all documents necessary to enable the Receivers to receive debts and other assets