YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER

YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER

The court refused inclusion of the first company because segregation for tax purposes can be achieved by proper physical segregation and accounting rather than creating a separate legal entity; the court varied the undertaking to include the second company because its omission was a mistake when the parent was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Yau Tak; 1st Defendant: Yau Ngai; 2nd Defendant: Yau Siu Chan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Case Number
HCA1255/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Vary Undertaking and Include Companies in Court Order / Interlocutory Application to Vary Undertaking/second Schedule Following Earlier Order of 7 January 2008
Outcome
Application partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Undertaking, Inclusion of Companies in Court Schedules, Family Company Status, Segregation of Business for Tax Purposes, Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Contract (undertaking) Tax Law Variation of Undertaking Inclusion of Companies in Court Schedules Family Company Status Segregation of Business for Tax Purposes +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yau Tak

Plaintiff

Yau Ngai

1st Defendant

Yau Siu Chan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Vary Undertaking and Include Companies in Court Order / Interlocutory Application to Vary Undertaking/second Schedule Following Earlier Order of 7 January 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants/plaintiffs should be permitted to include two companies in the second schedule of the undertaking
  2. 2 Whether the name of the first company justifies refusal of inclusion
  3. 3 Whether separate legal personality is necessary to address mainland tax issues

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused inclusion of the first company because segregation for tax purposes can be achieved by proper physical segregation and accounting rather than creating a separate legal entity; the court varied the undertaking to include the second company because its omission was a mistake when the parent was included and including it would rectify error without affecting status quo.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Application to include the first company in the second schedule dismissed
  • Undertaking varied to include the second company in the second schedule and also included in the first schedule to confirm family company status