LI WEI JIAN v. HUA FA (HUA SHENG) INDUSTRY LTD AND OTHERS

Source-derived case information.

Citation: LI WEI JIAN v. HUA FA (HUA SHENG) INDUSTRY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties: Petitioner: Li Wei Jian; Company: Hua Fa (Hua Sheng) Industry Limited; 1st Respondent: Wong Ka Wing; 2nd Respondent: Chow Lo Ming
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 26 October 2006
Case Number: HCCW145/2006
Procedural Posture: Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Judgment on Strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Amend Petition (decision)
Outcome: Petition dismissed and struck out; leave to amend refused
Legal Topics: Winding Up, Just and Equitable Ground, Companies Ordinance S168 a, Strike Out for Want of Particularity, Amendment of Pleadings, Inspection of Company Books, Abuse of Process
Source Language: en

Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Just and Equitable Ground Companies Ordinance S168 a Strike Out for Want of Particularity Amendment of Pleadings +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Li Wei Jian

Petitioner

Hua Fa (Hua Sheng) Industry Limited

Company

Wong Ka Wing

1st Respondent

Chow Lo Ming

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Judgment on Strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Amend Petition (decision)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the petition is frivolous, vexatious, embarrassing or discloses no reasonable cause of action
2 Whether leave should be granted to amend an inadequately particularised winding-up petition
3 Whether refusal of access to company documents alone can support just and equitable winding-up relief

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused and the petition was struck out and dismissed because the proposed amended petition remained seriously deficient in particularity, leaving respondents unable to meet the allegations, the defects persisted despite repeated opportunities to amend, and allowing the petition to remain would unfairly prejudice the company and third parties; petitioner may present a properly formulated fresh petition or apply under statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed and struck out; leave to amend refused

Orders

Refuse leave to amend the petition in the form proposed
Strike out and dismiss the existing petition

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.