CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

The application to strike out was dismissed because the statement of claim, read as a whole, pleaded acts and particulars (misappropriation, conversion, obstruction and breaches of fiduciary duty) from which it was open on the balance of probabilities to infer the 2nd defendant's involvement in a fraudulent conspiracy; the Registrar's unless order did not operate as an absolute bar to interlocutory applications in the circumstances; delay in bringing the strike‑out application was noted but insufficient to justify striking out.

Citation
CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chinacast Education Corporation; 2nd Plaintiff: Chinacast Technology (BVI) Limited; 3rd Plaintiff: Chinacast Technology (Shanghai) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Mr Sena
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Case Number
HCA1062/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (fraud/misappropriation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19(1)(a) Following Case Management Conference
Outcome
Application to strike out statement of claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Unless Order, Fraudulent Conspiracy, Misappropriation, Specific Discovery, Security for Costs, Mareva Injunction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Fiduciary Duties Commercial Fraud Discovery Strike Out Unless Order Fraudulent Conspiracy +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chinacast Education Corporation

1st Plaintiff

Chinacast Technology (BVI) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Chinacast Technology (Shanghai) Limited

3rd Plaintiff

Mr Sena

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (fraud/misappropriation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19(1)(a) Following Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant under Order 18 r 19(1)(a)
  2. 2 Construction and effect of the Registrar's unless order dated 4 June 2014
  3. 3 Standard of pleading required for allegations of fraud and whether inference may sustain fraud/conspiracy allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out was dismissed because the statement of claim, read as a whole, pleaded acts and particulars (misappropriation, conversion, obstruction and breaches of fiduciary duty) from which it was open on the balance of probabilities to infer the 2nd defendant's involvement in a fraudulent conspiracy; the Registrar's unless order did not operate as an absolute bar to interlocutory applications in the circumstances; delay in bringing the strike‑out application was noted but insufficient to justify striking out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out statement of claim dismissed

Orders

  • Statement of claim not struck out
  • Order nisi that the costs of the application be paid on a party basis by the 2nd defendant Mr Sena