GE QINGFU AND OTHERS v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

GE QINGFU AND OTHERS v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

The court found the jurisdictional and quantum grounds to be arguable but, balancing the prejudice and evidence, refused to grant a stay because the defendants failed to offer security or to pay the judgment debt into court and there was no evidence the plaintiffs would not comply with appellate orders; therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 786
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: INA 13th Defendant; Defendant: TONG KING TIM 14th Defendant; Defendant: TSUN TRACY CHUI SHAN 15th Defendant; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 3rd Defendant; Defendant: 4th Defendant; Defendant: 6th Defendant; Defendant: 7th Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2019
Case Number
HCMP2222/2016
Procedural Posture
Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Decision in Chambers (interim Application)
Outcome
Stay of execution pending appeal refused
Legal Topics
Equitable Compensation, Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Assessment of Damages, Companies Ordinance Ss 728 730, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Source Language
en
Companies Law Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Equitable Compensation Injunctions Stay of Execution Assessment of Damages +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

INA 13th Defendant

Defendant

TONG KING TIM 14th Defendant

Defendant

TSUN TRACY CHUI SHAN 15th Defendant

Defendant

1st Defendant

Defendant

3rd Defendant

Defendant

4th Defendant

Defendant

6th Defendant

Defendant

7th Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Decision in Chambers (interim Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under Companies Ordinance ss 728-730 to award damages in lieu of injunction
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of equitable compensation awarded was correctly assessed
  3. 3 Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the jurisdictional and quantum grounds to be arguable but, balancing the prejudice and evidence, refused to grant a stay because the defendants failed to offer security or to pay the judgment debt into court and there was no evidence the plaintiffs would not comply with appellate orders; therefore execution should not be stayed pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution pending appeal refused

Orders

  • Stay of execution pending appeal refused