3 Nov 2021
The Company failed to establish any bona fide defence on substantial grounds or to show that the Petitioner assumed advisory duties; the asserted cross‑claim was not substantiated and the alleged loss did not exceed the petition debt; accordingly the winding up petition succeeded and the court made the normal winding up order.
19 Sept 2017
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable appeal or reasonable prospect of success on the core pleaded issues (the court correctly treated the case as alleging Mr Ma's knowing participation/connivance rather than mere negligence or incompetence), therefore the minimum threshold for renewing the Mareva injunction pending appeal was not met; nonetheless, because of real risk of dissipation and to preserve the status quo pending the plaintiffs' prompt application to the Court of Appeal, the court granted a limited interim renewal subject to a 21‑day condition and made a costs order ni…
29 Oct 2009
The Court of Appeal concluded the provisional liquidators acted in ways that caused the petitioners reasonably to lose confidence and gave reasonable grounds for a perception of bias in favour of the Yeungs (failure to consult, channel receipts through Yeung Senior, adoption of Long Summer with a retrospective 5% commission, and lack of court directions); balancing the interests of the liquidation, the judge properly exercised his discretion to remove them and the appeals were dismissed.
5 Feb 2008
The judge was satisfied that, given the pleaded fraud, particulars of misappropriation totalling $4,884,200 and the defendant's theft conviction, the plaintiff was likely to obtain judgment for a substantial sum; accordingly an interim payment of $4,884,200 and costs was ordered under Order 29 Rules 11 and 12.
7 Nov 2006
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment unconditionally because the defendant's general defence was coherent and covered all claims such that the disputes should proceed to trial; although some aspects of the defence were weak, overall they were not so shadowy as to justify maintaining the default judgment, and the procedural objections to the form of the judgments did not prevent trial.