FRIENDSHIP INVESTMENTS LTD v. TO CHUN FAN AND OTHERS

FRIENDSHIP INVESTMENTS LTD v. TO CHUN FAN AND OTHERS

The judge refused leave to appeal because the 7th respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of showing it was plain and obvious that discovery by the 7th respondent would not be necessary and that the judge had wrongly exercised his discretion; the original decision to refuse strike-out was within the court's discretion and therefore stands; accordingly costs follow the event and are payable forthwith with a certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1247
Parties
Petitioner: Friendship Investments Limited; 1st Respondent: To Chun Fan; 2nd Respondent: Yu Chui Man Yvonne; 3rd Respondent: Chan Chak Sang Simon; 4th Respondent: Li Kam Ming; 5th Respondent: Nuevopak Manufacturing Limited; 6th Respondent: General Appliance (Holdings) Limited; 7th Respondent: General Appliance (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2020
Case Number
HCCW197/2018
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision (strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Strike-out application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to petitioner payable forthwith with certificate for counsel and taxed if not agreed; application to vary costs order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Joinder, Discovery, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Court Rules Costs Strike Out Joinder Discovery Leave to Appeal +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friendship Investments Limited

Petitioner

To Chun Fan

1st Respondent

Yu Chui Man Yvonne

2nd Respondent

Chan Chak Sang Simon

3rd Respondent

Li Kam Ming

4th Respondent

Nuevopak Manufacturing Limited

5th Respondent

General Appliance (Holdings) Limited

6th Respondent

General Appliance (Hong Kong) Limited

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision (strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was plain and obvious that the 7th respondent did not need to be joined as a party
  2. 2 Whether discovery by the 7th respondent would be necessary
  3. 3 Whether the 7th respondent has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal (leave to appeal)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused leave to appeal because the 7th respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of showing it was plain and obvious that discovery by the 7th respondent would not be necessary and that the judge had wrongly exercised his discretion; the original decision to refuse strike-out was within the court's discretion and therefore stands; accordingly costs follow the event and are payable forthwith with a certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to petitioner payable forthwith with certificate for counsel and taxed if not agreed; application to vary costs order dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike-out application against the 7th respondent dismissed
  • Leave to appeal refused (7th respondent)