PANG SAI YU the manager of “PANG SHE YAN TSO” v. WINNER DAY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

PANG SAI YU the manager of “PANG SHE YAN TSO” v. WINNER DAY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Stay refused because defendants failed to show good reasons: even if trespass grounds succeed on appeal, independent findings of breach of fiduciary duties and liability for dishonest assistance/knowing receipt mean the orders relating to the Lots and the award for compensation would likely survive; no evidence that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3685
Parties
Plaintiff (manager of "pang SHE YAN Tso"): Pang Sai Yu; 1st Defendant: Winner Day Investment Limited; 2nd Defendant: Pang Kwok Kuen; 3rd Defendant: Ho King Choi; 4th Defendant: Pang Ying Kai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2024
Case Number
HCMP788/2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (order 113 Application) / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal (decision on Paper)
Outcome
Stay application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Fiduciary Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Stay of Execution, Mesne Profits, Vacant Possession, Injunctions
Source Language
en
Tort Equity Civil Procedure Property Law Trespass Fiduciary Duties Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pang Sai Yu

Plaintiff (manager of "pang SHE YAN Tso")

Winner Day Investment Limited

1st Defendant

Pang Kwok Kuen

2nd Defendant

Ho King Choi

3rd Defendant

Pang Ying Kai

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (order 113 Application) / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal (decision on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether orders for delivery of vacant possession and injunctive reliefs relating to the Lots should be stayed
  3. 3 Whether the monetary award (damages/mesne profits) should be stayed

Ratio Decidendi

Stay refused because defendants failed to show good reasons: even if trespass grounds succeed on appeal, independent findings of breach of fiduciary duties and liability for dishonest assistance/knowing receipt mean the orders relating to the Lots and the award for compensation would likely survive; no evidence that execution would render the appeal nugatory and no strong likelihood of success on appeal was shown.

Court Disposition

Stay application dismissed

Orders

  • The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants' application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
  • Order nisi that the defendants should pay the plaintiff its costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel