QUESCO HOLDINGS LTD v. QUESCO SYSTEMS LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- QUESCO HOLDINGS LTD v. QUESCO SYSTEMS LTD AND ANOTHER
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 10 October 2007
- Posture
- Companies Matter Under Section 100 Companies Ordinance (cap.32) / Decision on Originating Summons After Hearing Restored Following Substituted Service
- Case number
- HCMP81/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 10 October 2007
- Posture
- Companies Matter Under Section 100 Companies Ordinance (cap.32) / Decision on Originating Summons After Hearing Restored Following Substituted Service
- Case number
- HCMP81/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the 2nd defendant held the one share as nominee for the applicant pursuant to a declaration of trust, had executed an instrument of transfer and appointed the applicant as attorney, and substituted service had been effected, the court was empowered to order the transfer and entry on the register despite the absence of the original transfer instrument.
Court disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Order that one share of the 1st defendant standing in the name of the 2nd defendant as nominee for the applicant be transferred to the applicant
- Order that the transfer be entered on the register of members of the 1st defendant
- No order as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Quesco Holdings Limited (formerly Lecco Strategic Holdings Limited)
Applicant Counsel: Ms Lau Yan Ling of Messrs Fong Yin Cheung & Co.Quesco Systems Limited (formerly Lecco Consultants Limited)
1st DefendantYu Cheuk Sin
2nd DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Shares Transferred: 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Companies Matter Under Section 100 Companies Ordinance (cap.32) / Decision on Originating Summons After Hearing Restored Following Substituted Service
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should order transfer of a share held by a nominee to the beneficial owner under s100 Companies Ordinance
- 02
Whether absence of the executed instrument of transfer prevents the court from ordering transfer
- 03
Whether substituted service was sufficient to proceed in absence of the defendants
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant relied on a declaration of trust and an executed instrument of transfer and an irrevocable appointment of the applicant as attorney by the 2nd defendant showing the share was held as nominee for the applicant; substituted service had been obtained; the court should order transfer and entry on the register despite the original transfer documents being lost.
- Respondent
- No affidavits or appearances were filed by either defendant; no opposing argument was presented; the defendants were absent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 100 Companies Ordinance (Cap.32) and equitable principles governing trusts and nominees
Court may order transfer of share and direct entry on the register where share is held on trust for the applicant and the nominee has undertaken to transfer or appointed the applicant as attorney
- 02
Practice of the High Court concerning substituted service and procedure
Where substituted service is properly effected and defendants are absent, the court may hear and determine the originating summons on the evidence available
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the 2nd defendant held the one share as nominee for the applicant pursuant to a declaration of trust, had executed an instrument of transfer and appointed the applicant as attorney, and substituted service had been effected, the court was empowered to order the transfer and entry on the register despite the absence of the original transfer instrument.
Court disposition
Application granted
- Order that one share of the 1st defendant standing in the name of the 2nd defendant as nominee for the applicant be transferred to the applicant
- Order that the transfer be entered on the register of members of the 1st defendant
- No order as to costs
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 10 October 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 10 October 2007
bjbj HCMP 81/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 81 OF 2007 ____ IN THE MATTER of QUESCO SYSTEMS LIMITED formerly known as LECCO CONSULTANTS LIMITED and IN THE MATTER of Section 100 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong ____
BETWEEN QUESCO HOLDINGS LIMITED Applicant formerly known as LECCO STRATEGIC HOLDINGS LIMITED and QUESCO SYSTEMS LIMITED 1st Defendant formerly known as LECCO CONSULTANTS LIMITED YU CHEUK SIN 2nd Defendant Before: Hon Kwan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 10 October 2007 Date of Decision: 10 October 2007 ______
D E C I S I O N ______ This is an application by originating summons taken out by Quesco Holdings Limited, seeking an order that one share of Quesco Systems Limited, the 1st defendant herein, standing in the name of Yu Cheuk Sin, the 2nd defendant herein, as the nominee for the applicant, be transferred to the applicant and that the transfer be entered on the register of members of the 1st defendant. The application first came before the court on 26 January 2007. It was adjourned for the applicant to seek an order for substituted service of the originating summons and supporting affirmation on the 2nd defendant. That order was obtained from the Registrar on 21 June 2007 and was complied with on 7 August 2007. Hence, the application was restored for hearing today. The 2nd defendant was an employee of the applicant at the material time and he held one share in the 1st defendant as the nominee and for the benefit of the applicant. He executed a declaration of trust on 17 March 2000 which was exhibited in the supporting affirmation of the applicant. By the declaration of trust, the 2nd defendant undertook when called upon to do so by the applicant to transfer the share he held as the applicant may direct and for such purpose he had executed an instrument of transfer of the share he held. He had also irrevocably appointed the applicant as his attorney, to insert the name of
such person as the applicant shall nominate to take a transfer of the share. The applicant and the 1st defendant are, however, unable to locate the instrument of transfer or the bought and sold notes signed by the 2nd defendant in the applicant s favour. The 2nd defendant left the employment of the applicant in March 2006 and despite repeated attempts, the applicant has not been able to locate the 2nd defendant. It is appropriate in the circumstances to grant this application. I make an order that the one share of the 1st defendant now standing in the name of the 2nd defendant as nominee for the applicant be transferred to the applicant. I further order that the transfer be entered on the register of members of the 1st defendant. I make no order as to the costs of this application. (S Kwan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Ms Lau Yan Ling of Messrs Fong Yin Cheung & Co., for the Applicant The 1st Defendant, absent The 2nd Defendant, absent 1udk 1udk i$&` r*pa 5<>| P!_HD Vx[Hi w[{t0 w[{t P!_H HCCW.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.