CHAN KING HO LOUIS v. ORGANIC WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN KING HO LOUIS v. ORGANIC WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER

The court refused to interfere with the valuer's report because the valuer acted within the scope of the engagement and there was no evidence of bad faith or valuation outside instructions; the challenged bad debts and director's draw were properly treated as assets as at 31 August 2010; accordingly the 2nd Respondent's application to reverse those items was dismissed and the stay was lifted with interest awarded to the Petitioner.

Citation
CHAN KING HO LOUIS v. ORGANIC WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: CHAN KING HO LOUIS; 1st Respondent: ORGANIC WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: MELINDA BILUG LLOYD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 2014
Case Number
HCCW41/2011
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Proceedings (share Valuation Under Deed of Settlement) / Chambers Hearing and Judgment on Summonses
Outcome
2nd Respondent's summons dismissed in part; stay uplifted; interest awarded; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Share Valuation, Final and Binding Valuation, Good Faith of Valuer, Lifting Stay of Proceedings, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Share Valuation Final and Binding Valuation Good Faith of Valuer Lifting Stay of Proceedings +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN KING HO LOUIS

Petitioner

ORGANIC WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) LIMITED

1st Respondent

MELINDA BILUG LLOYD

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Proceedings (share Valuation Under Deed of Settlement) / Chambers Hearing and Judgment on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should interfere with a final and binding valuation under a deed of settlement
  2. 2 Whether the valuer acted in good faith or outside instructions such that the valuation is invalid
  3. 3 Whether specific items (bad debts and director's draw/salary) were properly included in the valuation as assets

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to interfere with the valuer's report because the valuer acted within the scope of the engagement and there was no evidence of bad faith or valuation outside instructions; the challenged bad debts and director's draw were properly treated as assets as at 31 August 2010; accordingly the 2nd Respondent's application to reverse those items was dismissed and the stay was lifted with interest awarded to the Petitioner.

Court Disposition

2nd Respondent's summons dismissed in part; stay uplifted; interest awarded; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Dismissal of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 2nd Respondent's summons with costs to the Petitioner
  • All reserved costs orders to stand as no order as to costs (by agreement)