SHING PROPERTIES LTD v. CHAN KA PO NATASHA AND OTHERS

SHING PROPERTIES LTD v. CHAN KA PO NATASHA AND OTHERS

The court found a real risk of dissipation based on the director's affirmation that he may apply the sale proceeds to a personal business project; that risk justified interlocutory injunctions to preserve defendants' ability to recover costs, so the injunctions sought were ordered as framed in the summonses.

Citation
SHING PROPERTIES LTD v. CHAN KA PO NATASHA AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: SHING PROPERTIES LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN KA PO NATASHA; 2nd Defendant: CHAN KA MING; 3rd Defendant: THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHAN SHING BUILDING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2013
Case Number
DCCJ2274/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Application for Injunction to Restrain Disposal of Sale Proceeds / Interim Injunction Application Post Judgment (heard 25 March 2013)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted restraining the plaintiff and its officers from disposing of or dealing with the proceeds of sale pending further order
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Dissipation of Assets, Sale Proceeds, Security for Costs, Directors' Liability
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Company Law Costs Injunctions Dissipation of Assets Sale Proceeds +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHING PROPERTIES LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHAN KA PO NATASHA

1st Defendant

CHAN KA MING

2nd Defendant

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHAN SHING BUILDING

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Application for Injunction to Restrain Disposal of Sale Proceeds / Interim Injunction Application Post Judgment (heard 25 March 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a real risk that the plaintiff would dissipate the sale proceeds of the property
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to protect the defendants' costs
  3. 3 Whether directors' personal non-liability affected the need for protective relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a real risk of dissipation based on the director's affirmation that he may apply the sale proceeds to a personal business project; that risk justified interlocutory injunctions to preserve defendants' ability to recover costs, so the injunctions sought were ordered as framed in the summonses.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted restraining the plaintiff and its officers from disposing of or dealing with the proceeds of sale pending further order

Orders

  • Order in terms of paragraph 1, 2, 3, 3(a) and 4 of the summons taken out by the 1st and 2nd defendant
  • Order in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the 3rd defendant's amended summons