CHEUNG HON WAH v. CHEUNG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG HON WAH v. CHEUNG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

Applied the interlocutory test: found there was a serious issue to be tried but on balance of convenience refused interim receivership because the company was shown to be still operating, allegations of mismanagement were largely tied to the parties' dispute and not sufficiently compelling, risk of substantial harm and cost from receivership outweighed benefits, and protective undertakings were accepted; therefore dismissal of application was appropriate.

Citation
CHEUNG HON WAH v. CHEUNG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Cheung Hon Wah; 1st Respondent: Cheung Kam Wah; 2nd Respondent: Kammy Town Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2003
Case Number
HCMP2686/2003
Procedural Posture
Company Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) / Interim Application for Appointment of Receivers Pending Hearing of the Petition; Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Receivership, Deadlock Between Equal Shareholders, Interim Relief, Derivative Action, Mismanagement, Dissipation of Assets
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Insolvency and Corporate Rescue Receivership Deadlock Between Equal Shareholders Interim Relief Derivative Action +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Hon Wah

Petitioner

Cheung Kam Wah

1st Respondent

Kammy Town Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) / Interim Application for Appointment of Receivers Pending Hearing of the Petition; Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried under s168A
  2. 2 Whether monetary compensation would be an adequate remedy
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies for an interim appointment of receivers

Ratio Decidendi

Applied the interlocutory test: found there was a serious issue to be tried but on balance of convenience refused interim receivership because the company was shown to be still operating, allegations of mismanagement were largely tied to the parties' dispute and not sufficiently compelling, risk of substantial harm and cost from receivership outweighed benefits, and protective undertakings were accepted; therefore dismissal of application was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for appointment of receivers dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: 1st Respondent to have costs of and occasioned by this application, to be taxed party and party if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel