Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Companies ordinance s.168a

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2008

TAM SHUK YIN ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

TAM SHUK YIN ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2399/2004

The court preferred the petitioners candidate and appointed him as valuer because the petitioners firm demonstrated greater relevant experience and resources, the respondents candidate disclosed inconsistent and unexplained fee revisions and careless disclosures that undermined confidence in his suitability and independence; consequently the respondents were ordered to pay the petitioners costs incurred after 28 April 2008.
21 Dec 2007

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP842/2007

Where multiple strike‑out applications were heard together on substantially identical evidence and arguments, the court will exercise its discretion to make a global costs order; the relative commercial value of companies and mere number of petitions struck out are not decisive. Given the respondents' success on striking out four petitions on a common legal basis and the reasonableness of pursuing the other petitions, the existing order nisi awarding half the costs to the respondents should stand and not be varied.
21 Dec 2007

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP840/2007

The court refused to vary the order nisi; success for costs must be assessed by reference to the basis on which the strike-out applications were argued and decided rather than by the commercial value of the companies or simply by counting petitions. Because the respondents succeeded on the common legal basis and the strike-out applications were not wholly unreasonable, a global order depriving respondents of half their costs was appropriate and the order nisi stands.
30 Nov 2007

TSUI WAI KUEN v. CHEUNG KING CHUNG RAY AND OTHERS

Citation

TSUI WAI KUEN v. CHEUNG KING CHUNG RAY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2405/2007

Although the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the dispute was essentially a shareholder/company dispute; the plaintiff faced only a risk of unquantifiable damage while the defendants faced a certainty of unquantifiable damage if injunctive relief were granted; coupled with the defendants' undertaking to account and provide audited monthly reports and the plaintiff's delay, the balance of convenience favoured refusal of the interlocutory injunctions, so the summons was dismissed.
27 Dec 2006

RE GLORY RISE LTD

Citation

RE GLORY RISE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV381/2004

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly found the deceased's representations induced the plaintiff to act to her detriment giving rise to a common intention constructive trust which could attach to the company's shares and, ultimately, the underlying property once the interested shareholdings left only the parties; consequently the winding up order and dismissal of the company’s action were properly made.
17 Nov 2004

GLORY RISE LTD v. LUO XING JUAN ANGELA

Citation

GLORY RISE LTD v. LUO XING JUAN ANGELA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA285/2003

The court found on the evidence that the deceased intended to confer a 35% beneficial interest in the Property on Miss Luo and transferred 3,500 shares to her as a gift; Miss Luo relied to her detriment; the Company therefore held the Property on constructive trust for the deceased and Miss Luo in proportions 65:35; as a beneficial co‑owner Miss Luo was not a trespasser and the Company's claims failed; the conduct of the Company after the deceased's death was unfairly prejudicial to Miss Luo's interest and justified winding up the Company on just and equitable grounds, with directions for the…
11 Jul 2003

RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW603/2001

Although petitioners mis‑stated addresses in the petition (used business addresses), evidence established they had permanent residential addresses known to respondents and there was no intention to deceive or to evade litigation; respondents failed to satisfy requirements of O.23 r.1(c)/(d); application for security for costs dismissed; costs ordered as detailed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TAM SHUK YIN ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

TSUI WAI KUEN v. CHEUNG KING CHUNG RAY AND OTHERS

RE GLORY RISE LTD

GLORY RISE LTD v. LUO XING JUAN ANGELA

RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD