WEI WEN v. WEI XING AND ANOTHER

WEI WEN v. WEI XING AND ANOTHER

The court would have made the substantive order to convene the EGM under s.114B; the applicant is entitled to costs of the application up to and including 17 October 2012 and the costs of the hearing on 5 November 2012, but thereafter there is no order as to costs; a global gross sum assessment of costs is appropriate and fixed at $90,000.

Citation
WEI WEN v. WEI XING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Wei Wen; 1st Respondent: Wei Xing; 2nd Respondent: WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2012
Case Number
HCMP2076/2012
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.114 B Companies Ordinance to Convene an Egm; Related to Hca797/2012 / Judgment on Costs and Substantive Application (application Heard 16 Oct and 5 Nov 2012; Judgment 5 Nov 2012)
Outcome
Substantive application would have been granted to convene the EGM; applicant awarded costs up to and including 17 October 2012 and costs of the hearing on 5 November 2012; no order as to costs thereafter; gross sum assessment of costs fixed at $90,000.
Legal Topics
Extraordinary General Meeting, Section 114 B Companies Ordinance, Derivative/representative Action Authorisation, Quorum and Deadlock, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Extraordinary General Meeting Section 114 B Companies Ordinance Derivative/representative Action Authorisation Quorum and Deadlock Costs Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wei Wen

Applicant

Wei Xing

1st Respondent

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.114 B Companies Ordinance to Convene an Egm; Related to Hca797/2012 / Judgment on Costs and Substantive Application (application Heard 16 Oct and 5 Nov 2012; Judgment 5 Nov 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its power under s.114B Companies Ordinance to convene an EGM to resolve a shareholders' deadlock
  2. 2 Whether the successful applicant should be deprived of costs or have no order as to costs because the other shareholder would not attend an EGM to his prejudice
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment and assessment of costs including gross sum assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The court would have made the substantive order to convene the EGM under s.114B; the applicant is entitled to costs of the application up to and including 17 October 2012 and the costs of the hearing on 5 November 2012, but thereafter there is no order as to costs; a global gross sum assessment of costs is appropriate and fixed at $90,000.

Court Disposition

Substantive application would have been granted to convene the EGM; applicant awarded costs up to and including 17 October 2012 and costs of the hearing on 5 November 2012; no order as to costs thereafter; gross sum assessment of costs fixed at $90,000.

Orders

  • Applicant entitled to costs up to and including 17 October 2012
  • No order as to costs thereafter save for the costs of the hearing on 5 November 2012