LUK KWOK ON AND ANOTHER v. LUK KEUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

LUK KWOK ON AND ANOTHER v. LUK KEUNG JOHN AND OTHERS

The court refused to strike out the petition in its entirety but ordered that the opening paragraph of paragraph 15 and sub‑paragraphs (a)–(d) be struck out unless the petitioners applied within 14 days and successfully obtained permission to amend to provide particulars; all other challenged paragraphs were not struck out. The court found the petitioners had established a prima facie case on loss of substratum but declined to appoint provisional liquidators because there was insufficient evidence of assets being in imminent jeopardy or urgency to justify the appointment. Costs orders were made accordingly.

Citation
LUK KWOK ON AND ANOTHER v. LUK KEUNG JOHN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Petitioner: LUK KWOK ON; 2nd Petitioner: LAI SUK FUN BECKY; 1st Respondent: LUK KEUNG JOHN; 2nd Respondent: KWONG LAI KWAN; 3rd Respondent: MICHAEL JOAQIN PARSONS; 4th Respondent: SILVER CITY CONSULTANTS & MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 5th Respondent: TRABLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2008
Case Number
HCCW485/2007
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) With Interlocutory Applications / Strike‑out Application and Summons for Appointment of Provisional Liquidators (interlocutory Hearing)
Outcome
Partial success for respondents on particulars: limited strike‑out of parts of paragraph 15 unless amended; otherwise petition survives; summons for appointment of provisional liquidators dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Loss of Substratum, Strike Out of Pleadings, Appointment of Provisional Liquidators, Abuse of Process, Particulars of Claim
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Loss of Substratum Strike Out of Pleadings Appointment of Provisional Liquidators Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LUK KWOK ON

1st Petitioner

LAI SUK FUN BECKY

2nd Petitioner

LUK KEUNG JOHN

1st Respondent

KWONG LAI KWAN

2nd Respondent

MICHAEL JOAQIN PARSONS

3rd Respondent

SILVER CITY CONSULTANTS & MANAGEMENT LIMITED

4th Respondent

TRABLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition Under Companies Ordinance (cap. 32) With Interlocutory Applications / Strike‑out Application and Summons for Appointment of Provisional Liquidators (interlocutory Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action or should be struck out for lack of particulars or as frivolous/vexatious/abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether specific allegations (paragraph 15) are sufficiently particularised
  3. 3 Whether the petition is presented for a collateral purpose to frustrate enforcement proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the petition in its entirety but ordered that the opening paragraph of paragraph 15 and sub‑paragraphs (a)–(d) be struck out unless the petitioners applied within 14 days and successfully obtained permission to amend to provide particulars; all other challenged paragraphs were not struck out. The court found the petitioners had established a prima facie case on loss of substratum but declined to appoint provisional liquidators because there was insufficient evidence of assets being in imminent jeopardy or urgency to justify the appointment. Costs orders were made accordingly.

Court Disposition

Partial success for respondents on particulars: limited strike‑out of parts of paragraph 15 unless amended; otherwise petition survives; summons for appointment of provisional liquidators dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike out the opening paragraph of paragraph 15 and sub‑paragraphs (a) to (d) unless petitioners issue an application within 14 days to amend and are successful in obtaining permission to amend to provide particulars
  • Sub‑paragraph (e) of paragraph 15 is not struck out