CHAN CHING MAN v. IP CHIU HUNG AND OTHERS

CHAN CHING MAN v. IP CHIU HUNG AND OTHERS

The court found the four year delay was inordinate and inexcusable but did not establish abuse of process; however the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to a fair trial or other serious prejudice to justify the draconian remedy of striking out. The respondents' application to dismiss/strike out was therefore dismissed.

Citation
CHAN CHING MAN v. IP CHIU HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Chan Ching Man; 1st Respondent: Ip Chiu Hung; 2nd Respondent: Ho Shek Wing; 3rd Respondent: Kam Wing Travel Group Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Case Number
HCCW450/2003
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss/strike Out for Want of Prosecution and Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application by 1st and 2nd Respondents to dismiss/strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Ground, Section 168 a Purchase of Shares, Want of Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Strike Out for Delay
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Just and Equitable Ground Section 168 a Purchase of Shares Want of Prosecution Abuse of Process Strike Out for Delay

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Ching Man

Petitioner

Ip Chiu Hung

1st Respondent

Ho Shek Wing

2nd Respondent

Kam Wing Travel Group Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss/strike Out for Want of Prosecution and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner maintained proceedings with no intention to bring them to trial (abuse of process)
  2. 2 Whether four years of inaction amounted to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  3. 3 Whether the delay caused prejudice sufficient to justify striking out

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the four year delay was inordinate and inexcusable but did not establish abuse of process; however the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to a fair trial or other serious prejudice to justify the draconian remedy of striking out. The respondents' application to dismiss/strike out was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application by 1st and 2nd Respondents to dismiss/strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Application by 1st and 2nd Respondents dismissed
  • Costs and further directions reserved