LEE SHU HANG AND ANOTHER v. KAN LAP KEE (also known as “TERRY KAN”)

LEE SHU HANG AND ANOTHER v. KAN LAP KEE (also known as “TERRY KAN”)

The court found contempt established based on two statements to the SCIA that breached the protocol in the 2/11/2017 Order; having weighed aggravating and mitigating factors (no proved personal financial benefit, some collateral professional consequences, prior contributions and character, and improper attempt by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2671
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Kan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 August 2022
Case Number
HCMP2320/2020
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt / Sentencing (mitigation Hearing)
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt; defendant's application dismissed; financial penalty imposed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Breach of Court Order, Duties of a Liquidator
Source Language
en
Contempt of Court Insolvency Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Sentencing Principles Mitigation Breach of Court Order Duties of a Liquidator

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Kan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal for Contempt / Sentencing (mitigation Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant committed contempt by breaching the 2/11/2017 Order
  2. 2 What sentence is appropriate and proportionate for the contempt
  3. 3 Whether affidavit affirmation by plaintiffs is permissible to rebut mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found contempt established based on two statements to the SCIA that breached the protocol in the 2/11/2017 Order; having weighed aggravating and mitigating factors (no proved personal financial benefit, some collateral professional consequences, prior contributions and character, and improper attempt by plaintiffs to file a rebuttal affirmation), the appropriate and proportionate sentence is a financial penalty rather than imprisonment, namely a fine of HK$250,000.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt; defendant's application dismissed; financial penalty imposed.

Orders

  • Defendant (Kan) is fined HK$250,000 for contempt of court
  • Defendant's application (counter-application) is dismissed