Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion of shares

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2012

SHERRYKNOLL ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. GRAND POWER LTD

Citation

SHERRYKNOLL ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. GRAND POWER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1599/2009

Application refused: plaintiffs demonstrated only serious questions to be tried not the high degree of assurance required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction; balance of convenience favoured refusal because damages were adequate, risk of injustice from granting injunction was greater, and the defendant's contested factual case was capable of belief requiring trial determination.
20 Dec 2010

INFO ALLIED LTD v. LEUNG TZE CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

INFO ALLIED LTD v. LEUNG TZE CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA774/2007

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed because the documents sought were, on the evidence and ordinary inference, without prejudice settlement communications and internal memoranda protected by privilege (Rush & Tomkins), and no basis was shown to lift that privilege or to identify unprivileged open correspondence; accordingly the court will not compel discovery of those materials though the plaintiff must file a supplemental list of documents referring to the privileged materials and verify it by affidavit within 14 days.
22 Nov 2006

OKACHI (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. NOMINEE (HOLDING) LTD

Citation

OKACHI (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. NOMINEE (HOLDING) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV347/2005

Clause 7.1 made time of the essence and the defendant's obligations to apply promptly to SFC and HKFE were conditions; the defendant breached those conditions by inordinate delay and by conduct (attempted sub-sale) evincing repudiation; consequently the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the Agreement; because the contract was conditional and specific performance was not available no equitable conversion of the HKEC shares arose in favour of the defendant.
27 Jun 2002

SILVER STONE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU KWONG CHING, JAMES AND OTHERS

Citation

SILVER STONE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU KWONG CHING, JAMES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2206/2000

The 1st plaintiff was held to be ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction because its raison d'être is to hold shares as a BVI nominee and thus 'keep house' in the BVI; it was also a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of the 2nd plaintiff; accordingly, on those grounds security for costs is just and the Master’s order for security of $800,000 is upheld.
7 Mar 2001

Kwong Mun-fai, Sanny v. The Personal Representative of Chan Wai-dan, deceased

Citation

Kwong Mun-fai, Sanny v. The Personal Representative of Chan Wai-dan, deceased
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15418/2000

The application for interrogatories was largely refused because the requests were premature or unnecessary as the information was likely obtainable by discovery or witness statements; where interrogatories sought matters better addressed as particulars the court ordered further and better particulars; the court ordered discovery by list within 28 days and inspection 7 days thereafter and awarded party-and-party costs to the plaintiff.
8 Jul 1997

SWORDLIGHT ENTRPRISES LIMITED v. CHIU TAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

SWORDLIGHT ENTRPRISES LIMITED v. CHIU TAO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV80/1997

The Court held the defendants' assertions were believable and not shadowy on the material before the court; consequently the Master’s condition requiring payment of $4.1 million into court was unjustified and was set aside, and the defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.
19 Jul 1988

EDA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. ETEK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EDA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. ETEK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/1988

The Court held the plaintiffs were the beneficial owners, the second defendant converted the shares and was liable in damages; no estoppel arose because there was no fraud or gross negligence and the alleged representations were not relied on by the appellant in relation to a then-existing right; knowledge of common directors could not be imputed absent duties to communicate; consequently the trial judge's judgment and assessment of damages (allowing mitigation for replacement) were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
31 Aug 1979

BANK OF INDIA v. HEERA LALCHAND SHAHANI AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF INDIA v. HEERA LALCHAND SHAHANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3706/1979

The application for Mareva injunctions was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the assets (shares in private companies) were easily removable or convertible and failed to raise even a suspicion that defendants would remove assets; the plaintiff also failed to particularise securities and the nexus to the assets sought to be frozen, and for defendants resident in Hong Kong the existing Order 44A remedy made freezing relief inappropriate.