TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

The application for a stay was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's decision was unlikely to have direct bearing on the specific relevance issues raised in the strike out application, no concrete amendments to the petition had been proposed to justify delay, and the disputed Chime A allegations were not shown to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: TAN MAN KOU; Petitioner: CHEUNG YAT MING; 1st Respondent: CHIME CORPORATION LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: NINA KUNG alias NINA T H WANG; 3rd Respondent: KUNG YAN SUM (formerly known as GONG XIAN XIN); 4th Respondent: FORUM EVER LIMITED; 5th Respondent: FOCUS PROFIT LIMITED; 6th Respondent: LIU YUAN CHUN; 7th Respondent: JOSEPH WING KONG LEUNG; 8th Respondent: CHAN KAM POR; 9th Respondent: KWOK KI LI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 February 2004
Case Number
HCMP4146/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) S168 a / Chambers Application for Stay of Strike Out Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Strike Out Application, Stay Pending Appeal, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Petition, Relevance of Evidence
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeals Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Strike Out Application Stay Pending Appeal Abuse of Process Amendment of Petition +1 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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAN MAN KOU

Petitioner

CHEUNG YAT MING

Petitioner

CHIME CORPORATION LIMITED

1st Respondent

NINA KUNG alias NINA T H WANG

2nd Respondent

KUNG YAN SUM (formerly known as GONG XIAN XIN)

3rd Respondent

FORUM EVER LIMITED

4th Respondent

FOCUS PROFIT LIMITED

5th Respondent

LIU YUAN CHUN

6th Respondent

JOSEPH WING KONG LEUNG

7th Respondent

CHAN KAM POR

8th Respondent

KWOK KI LI

9th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap.32) S168 a / Chambers Application for Stay of Strike Out Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal judgment in CACV No.124/2003 overlaps with issues in the pending strike out application
  2. 2 Whether allegations concerning expropriation of Chime A shares are relevant to a s168A petition focused on Chime B shares
  3. 3 Whether it is an abuse of process to litigate beneficial ownership of Chime A shares in multiple proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's decision was unlikely to have direct bearing on the specific relevance issues raised in the strike out application, no concrete amendments to the petition had been proposed to justify delay, and the disputed Chime A allegations were not shown to overlap with the appellate issues; costs were awarded to the 2nd respondent and the Joint Administrators' costs to be taxed on a trustee basis and paid out of the estate.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay dismissed
  • Hearing date of the strike out application not vacated