LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS

LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS

The judge held that although a same‑day letter was not disclosed at the ex parte hearing, the omission was not material because the deputy judge granted the injunction to preserve the status quo and balance of power in the board — a result that would have followed even if the letter had been disclosed; there were serious questions to be tried and the balance of convenience favored continuing (or regranting) the injunction limited to restraining the contested board changes; accordingly the ex parte injunction was continued and costs were awarded to the petitioners in the cause.

Citation
LAU CHI YAN ROGER AND OTHERS v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Petitioner: LAU CHI YAN ROGER; 2nd Petitioner: KO HUNG CHUN; 3rd Petitioner: CHENG CHUNG MAN; 4th Petitioner: LEE YICK MO OWEN; 5th Petitioner: CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD; 1st Respondent: TUNG KA HUNG; 2nd Respondent: WONG CHI SANG NAVIS; 3rd Respondent: LI TAK YAN; 4th Respondent: KWOK WAI YI; 5th Respondent: HO HOI TUNG; 6th Respondent: NG KAI YAN; 7th Respondent: CHUI WAI LEUNG; 8th Respondent: WATERMARK GROUP LTD; 9th Respondent: RICH RIDER LTD; 10th Respondent: INCORPORATED NOMINEES LTD; 11th Respondent: GRAND SKY HOLDINGS LIMITED; 12th Respondent: GRAND WORLD TECHNOLOGY LTD; 13th Respondent: GRAND BOND (ASIA) LIMITED; 14th Respondent: ROCKENT ELECTRONICS LIMITED; 15th Respondent: CHANCE STAR LIMITED; 16th Respondent: CYBERONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD; 17th Respondent: BONDWAY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 18th Respondent: RATONAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 19th Respondent: KARSON CIRCUITS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2003
Case Number
HCCW1097/2002
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings No.1097 of 2002 / Interlocutory — Application to Continue/regrant Ex Parte Injunction (decision Delivered 21 February 2003)
Outcome
Ex parte injunction continued/regranted to preserve the status quo; petitioners to have costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Interim Injunction, Material Non Disclosure, Status Quo Preservation, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Company Law Injunctions Civil Procedure Equity Winding Up Interim Injunction Material Non Disclosure Status Quo Preservation +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU CHI YAN ROGER

1st Petitioner

KO HUNG CHUN

2nd Petitioner

CHENG CHUNG MAN

3rd Petitioner

LEE YICK MO OWEN

4th Petitioner

CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD

5th Petitioner

TUNG KA HUNG

1st Respondent

WONG CHI SANG NAVIS

2nd Respondent

LI TAK YAN

3rd Respondent

KWOK WAI YI

4th Respondent

HO HOI TUNG

5th Respondent

NG KAI YAN

6th Respondent

CHUI WAI LEUNG

7th Respondent

WATERMARK GROUP LTD

8th Respondent

RICH RIDER LTD

9th Respondent

INCORPORATED NOMINEES LTD

10th Respondent

GRAND SKY HOLDINGS LIMITED

11th Respondent

GRAND WORLD TECHNOLOGY LTD

12th Respondent

GRAND BOND (ASIA) LIMITED

13th Respondent

ROCKENT ELECTRONICS LIMITED

14th Respondent

CHANCE STAR LIMITED

15th Respondent

CYBERONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD

16th Respondent

BONDWAY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

17th Respondent

RATONAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

18th Respondent

KARSON CIRCUITS LTD

19th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings No.1097 of 2002 / Interlocutory — Application to Continue/regrant Ex Parte Injunction (decision Delivered 21 February 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners committed material non-disclosure at the ex parte hearing
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte injunction should be continued or regranted to preserve the status quo
  3. 3 Proper scope of the injunction within a corporate group and as to subsidiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that although a same‑day letter was not disclosed at the ex parte hearing, the omission was not material because the deputy judge granted the injunction to preserve the status quo and balance of power in the board — a result that would have followed even if the letter had been disclosed; there were serious questions to be tried and the balance of convenience favored continuing (or regranting) the injunction limited to restraining the contested board changes; accordingly the ex parte injunction was continued and costs were awarded to the petitioners in the cause.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction continued/regranted to preserve the status quo; petitioners to have costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Continue the ex parte injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents and the 11th respondent from giving effect to any resolutions made at the extraordinary general meeting of the 11th respondent held on 2 October 2002 until further order.
  • Continue the injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from procuring the 11th respondent to change the present board members of the 12th respondent until further order.