CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD

Petitioner failed to establish unfairly prejudicial conduct or breach of duties under s.168A. The respondent's explanations and supporting documents were accepted, key witnesses for respondent were credible, and many petitioner allegations were speculative or contradicted by documentary evidence. Accordingly the petitions were dismissed and costs ordered against the petitioner.

Citation
CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Chow Sau Hei; 1st Respondent: Ho Keung Yuen; Company: Smart Creator International Ltd; Company: Fintasy Ltd; Company: Turbo Cheer Development Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2013
Case Number
HCMP717/2006
Procedural Posture
Petitions Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance (unfair Prejudice) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
S.168 a Companies Ordinance, Unfair Prejudice, Oppressive Conduct, Breach of Directors' Duties, Buyout Remedy, Receivership, Discovery
Source Language
EN
Company Law Corporate Governance Equity Civil Procedure S.168 a Companies Ordinance Unfair Prejudice Oppressive Conduct Breach of Directors' Duties +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chow Sau Hei

Petitioner

Ho Keung Yuen

1st Respondent

Smart Creator International Ltd

Company

Fintasy Ltd

Company

Turbo Cheer Development Ltd

Company

Procedural Posture

Petitions Under Section 168 a Companies Ordinance (unfair Prejudice) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct was unfairly prejudicial under s.168A
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached duties to the companies or misappropriated funds
  3. 3 Whether the overdraft and bank-account arrangements were unauthorized

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner failed to establish unfairly prejudicial conduct or breach of duties under s.168A. The respondent's explanations and supporting documents were accepted, key witnesses for respondent were credible, and many petitioner allegations were speculative or contradicted by documentary evidence. Accordingly the petitions were dismissed and costs ordered against the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed
  • Order nisi that the Petitioner pay the costs of the Petitions with a certificate for two counsel