GAO HAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

GAO HAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

The ex parte receivership order was properly discharged and should not be re-granted because the applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (handwritten signature evidence, legal representation, and post-release correspondence/payments); there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and the court would not disturb the judge’s discretionary decision.

Citation
GAO HAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Xie; Plaintiff: Gao; Defendant (1st): Keeneye Holdings Limited; Defendant (5th): Bai Jun Tian Cheng Ltd (Baijun); Defendant (4th): Wang Li; Defendant (6th): EW Assets Management Limited; Defendant (7th): Far Orient Holdings Limited; Transferee/third Party: New Purple Golden Resources
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Case Number
HCMP1510/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Ex Parte Appointment of Receiver and Manager; Application for Continuation Pending Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Discharge of Ex Parte Receivership Order; Appeal Refused and Leave Denied
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; interlocutory ex parte receivership order discharged and not re-granted; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Receivership, Duress, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Share Transfer, Injunctions, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Company Law Contract Receivership Duress Misrepresentation Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications +3 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xie

Plaintiff

Gao

Plaintiff

Keeneye Holdings Limited

Defendant (1st)

Bai Jun Tian Cheng Ltd (Baijun)

Defendant (5th)

Wang Li

Defendant (4th)

EW Assets Management Limited

Defendant (6th)

Far Orient Holdings Limited

Defendant (7th)

New Purple Golden Resources

Transferee/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Ex Parte Appointment of Receiver and Manager; Application for Continuation Pending Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Discharge of Ex Parte Receivership Order; Appeal Refused and Leave Denied

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte appointment of a receiver and manager should be continued pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether material non-disclosure in the ex parte application required discharge of the receivership order
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious question to be tried on the merits of plaintiffs' claim to set aside share transfer agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte receivership order was properly discharged and should not be re-granted because the applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (handwritten signature evidence, legal representation, and post-release correspondence/payments); there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and the court would not disturb the judge’s discretionary decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; interlocutory ex parte receivership order discharged and not re-granted; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused with costs
  • Ex parte appointment of receiver and manager discharged and not continued