YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Given prior substantive rulings that the Estoppel, MLO and Agency Points did not raise serious issues to be tried and that the proposed MLO and Agency causes would have been struck out, the amended statement of claim in HCA1359 constituted an abuse of process and was frivolous; accordingly it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out and the action dismissed. Similarly, specified paragraphs of the defences in HCA1341 were incurably bad and struck out as unarguable.

Citation
YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca1359): YIFUNG PROPERTIES LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff (hca1359): WONDER EARN GROUP LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff (hca1359): CAPITAL METRO GROUP LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca1359): MANCHESTER SECURITIES CORP; 2nd Defendant (hca1359): NICHOLAS JAMES GRONOW; 3rd Defendant (hca1359): FOK HEI YU; 4th Defendant (hca1359): ELLIOTT ADVISORS (HK) LIMITED; Plaintiff (hca1341): YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca1341): LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY; 2nd Defendant (hca1341): HO SING CHUNG ROBERT; 3rd Defendant (hca1341): CHOY SIU FUNG REBECCA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 2015
Case Number
HCA1359/2014
Procedural Posture
High Court Actions HCA 1341/2014 and HCA 1359/2014 / Decision on Applications to Strike Out (in Chambers)
Outcome
HCA 1359/2014: statement of claim struck out and action dismissed; HCA 1341/2014: specified paragraphs of the defences of D1, D2 and D3 struck out; costs decisions made as to HCA1359 and reserved for HCA1341 authority summons.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Abuse of Process, Estoppel, Receivership, Implied Terms, Costs Assessment, Demurrer
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Company Law Contract Property Law Injunctions Security and Receivership Striking Out +6 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YIFUNG PROPERTIES LIMITED

1st Plaintiff (hca1359)

WONDER EARN GROUP LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff (hca1359)

CAPITAL METRO GROUP LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff (hca1359)

MANCHESTER SECURITIES CORP

1st Defendant (hca1359)

NICHOLAS JAMES GRONOW

2nd Defendant (hca1359)

FOK HEI YU

3rd Defendant (hca1359)

ELLIOTT ADVISORS (HK) LIMITED

4th Defendant (hca1359)

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Plaintiff (hca1341)

LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY

1st Defendant (hca1341)

HO SING CHUNG ROBERT

2nd Defendant (hca1341)

CHOY SIU FUNG REBECCA

3rd Defendant (hca1341)

Procedural Posture

High Court Actions HCA 1341/2014 and HCA 1359/2014 / Decision on Applications to Strike Out (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended statement of claim in HCA1359 discloses a reasonable cause of action (Estoppel Point)
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether parts of defences in HCA1341 are unarguable and ought to be struck out (No Event of Default, Implied Terms, Estoppel, MLO, Invalid Appointment of Receivers)

Ratio Decidendi

Given prior substantive rulings that the Estoppel, MLO and Agency Points did not raise serious issues to be tried and that the proposed MLO and Agency causes would have been struck out, the amended statement of claim in HCA1359 constituted an abuse of process and was frivolous; accordingly it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out and the action dismissed. Similarly, specified paragraphs of the defences in HCA1341 were incurably bad and struck out as unarguable.

Court Disposition

HCA 1359/2014: statement of claim struck out and action dismissed; HCA 1341/2014: specified paragraphs of the defences of D1, D2 and D3 struck out; costs decisions made as to HCA1359 and reserved for HCA1341 authority summons.

Orders

  • HCA 1359/2014: The statement of claim is struck out and the action dismissed.
  • HCA 1359/2014: On a nisi basis, costs of D1 and D4 are summarily assessed at $202,343 to be paid by the plaintiffs.