TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
The court found it impracticable to convene a meeting through the current directors because they had refused to sign identical resolutions; s114B is available without first invoking s113; in the absence of a stay the plaintiff is entitled to effect the Court of Appeal's order and it was fair and just to order an EGM under s114B, with consequential delivery of company seals/chops/cheque books to the newly constituted board within seven days after the EGM, and interim restraints secured by defendants' undertaking until the EGM.
- Citation
- TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Plaintiff (in Liquidation): TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: GIRVAN LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHAN HO YUN PING alias HO YUN PING; 4th Defendant: DAVID A. SONNENBERG; 5th Defendant: HAROLD S. DIVINE
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2009
- Case Number
- HCMP2540/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Company/shareholder Litigation / Interlocutory Application Under Section 114 B Companies Ordinance (hearing in Chambers)
- Outcome
- Application granted in part: court ordered an EGM under s114B and consequential directions; delivery up and restraints ordered/secured with adjustments; no order for delivery against 2nd defendant at this stage.
- Legal Topics
- Section 114 B Companies Ordinance, Convening General Meetings, Delivery Up of Company Property, Restraint on Disposal of Assets, Fraudulent Conveyance/scheme, Stay and Appeal
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
Plaintiff (in Liquidation)
TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LIMITED
1st Defendant
GIRVAN LIMITED
2nd Defendant
CHAN HO YUN PING alias HO YUN PING
3rd Defendant
DAVID A. SONNENBERG
4th Defendant
HAROLD S. DIVINE
5th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Company/shareholder Litigation / Interlocutory Application Under Section 114 B Companies Ordinance (hearing in Chambers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it is impracticable to call a general meeting of the 1st defendant under s114B
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order a meeting under s114B despite pending application for stay to the Court of Final Appeal
- 3 Whether delivery up of company property should be ordered and to whom
Ratio Decidendi
The court found it impracticable to convene a meeting through the current directors because they had refused to sign identical resolutions; s114B is available without first invoking s113; in the absence of a stay the plaintiff is entitled to effect the Court of Appeal's order and it was fair and just to order an EGM under s114B, with consequential delivery of company seals/chops/cheque books to the newly constituted board within seven days after the EGM, and interim restraints secured by defendants' undertaking until the EGM.
Court Disposition
Application granted in part: court ordered an EGM under s114B and consequential directions; delivery up and restraints ordered/secured with adjustments; no order for delivery against 2nd defendant at this stage.
Orders
- Order convening an EGM of the 1st defendant pursuant to section 114B Companies Ordinance, to be held and conducted as the court directs and permitting the plaintiff attending alone to constitute a meeting for passage of the specified resolutions
- Delivery up by the defendants of company seals, chops and cheque books to the newly constituted board of directors within 7 days after the holding of the EGM (scope narrowed from broader 'properties')
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment