CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, SMART CREATOR INTERNATIONAL LTD

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, SMART CREATOR INTERNATIONAL LTD

Petitions dismissed: petitioner failed to prove oppressive conduct or breach of duties; respondent's explanations were accepted and documentary evidence supported respondent and bookkeeper; many allegations were speculative, unpleaded or contradicted by contemporaneous records and petitioner lacked credibility; therefore no s168A relief granted and costs ordered against petitioner.

Citation
CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, SMART CREATOR INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Chow Sau Hei; 1st Respondent: Ho Keung Yuen; Company (subject): Smart Creator International Ltd; Company (subject): Fintasy Ltd; Company (subject): Turbo Cheer Development Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2013
Case Number
HCMP716/2006
Procedural Posture
Company Petition Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance (oppression/unfair Prejudice) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Oppression Remedy, Breach of Directors' Duties, Buy Out Order, Share Valuation, Mismanagement, Accounting and Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Oppression Remedy Breach of Directors' Duties Buy Out Order Share Valuation +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chow Sau Hei

Petitioner

Ho Keung Yuen

1st Respondent

Smart Creator International Ltd

Company (subject)

Fintasy Ltd

Company (subject)

Turbo Cheer Development Ltd

Company (subject)

Procedural Posture

Company Petition Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance (oppression/unfair Prejudice) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to unfairly prejudicial or oppressive conduct under s168A
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached fiduciary or statutory duties to the companies
  3. 3 Whether alleged misappropriations and unauthorised withdrawals occurred

Ratio Decidendi

Petitions dismissed: petitioner failed to prove oppressive conduct or breach of duties; respondent's explanations were accepted and documentary evidence supported respondent and bookkeeper; many allegations were speculative, unpleaded or contradicted by contemporaneous records and petitioner lacked credibility; therefore no s168A relief granted and costs ordered against petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed
  • Order nisi that the Petitioner pay the costs of the Petitions