Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Just and equitable ground

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2023

GENG HUA ZHONG AND OTHERS v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW403/2017

Amendments to the petitions are allowed in part: amendments relating to the quasi-partnership basis permitted but proposed new complaints concerning off-record transactions are disallowed because they are late, insufficiently justified and appear to raise matters more appropriate for defence; specific paragraphs seeking to introduce off-record transaction complaints are to be deleted; costs of the amendment application are reserved and pre-trial directions are given to streamline the trial.
31 Jul 2023

GENG HUA ZHONG AND OTHERS v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW431/2021

The court exercised its discretion to allow the petitioners to amend their petitions but disallowed the specific proposed amendments that sought to introduce new complaints about alleged off‑record transactions because those matters were not clearly shown to constitute just and equitable grounds for winding up and appeared to belong to defence/evidence rather than new petitioning grounds.
18 Oct 2021

NINOTRE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. STRONG LIGHT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3095
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW72/2019

On the evidence the court found on the balance of probabilities that the Wongs (principally via Ryan) exercised control over the Company through nominees and directed or caused serious misfeasance (notably the Red5 transaction, placement and option schemes and related-party dealings), that internal and regulatory processes were inadequate to vindicate minority interests and that alternative remedies in the Cayman Islands were not a sufficient or practical safeguard given the likelihood of concealment and continuing risk; accordingly it was just and equitable to wind up the Company to enable i…
1 Aug 2019

CHAN SIO IENG v. PLEASURE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW354/2015

The court held that the petitioner substantially obtained the relief sought and that this was not one of the rare cases requiring a merits inquiry; accordingly costs (including reserved costs and the costs of the application) were awarded to the petitioner to be paid by the personal respondents and the fortification money was ordered released to the petitioner.
1 Feb 2017

TAM WING YUEN AND OTHERS v. SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TAM WING YUEN AND OTHERS v. SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW392/2015

The amended petition was struck out because the petitioner failed to establish the jurisdictional criteria to wind up a foreign company in Hong Kong, alternative remedies were available and petitioner acted unreasonably and vexatiously by repeatedly litigating the same complaints; the petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the non-company respondents were improperly joined, justifying strike out and indemnity costs.
3 Feb 2016

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2015

The court treated the petition as a single event for costs purposes, rejected issue-based costs orders, accepted the petitioner's concession of a 20% global reduction as a fair reflection of unsuccessful issues (including section 168A), and ordered respondents to pay 80% of the petitioner's costs at each level; the request for a certificate for three counsel was refused as not sufficiently exceptional.
27 May 2015

LEE JONG RONG AND ANOTHER v. GREAT CHOICE CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE JONG RONG AND ANOTHER v. GREAT CHOICE CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW316/2013

On the pleaded facts the company was a passive BVI holding company and a bare trustee of shares in its wholly owned subsidiary K&A; the pleaded material did not establish a sufficient connection with Hong Kong for the court to exercise its discretionary winding‑up jurisdiction under s327(3)(c), nor did it establish a place of business in Hong Kong for s168A; accordingly the petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out.
23 Mar 2015

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1685/2009

The court struck out the petitions against CY Macao and CY Mauritius for failure to plead and prove the requisite substantial connection with Hong Kong under s327 and held there was no realistic prospect the petitioners could establish jurisdiction; the court struck out the winding-up prayers in the five Hong Kong company petitions because, on the evidence, there was no realistic prospect of a winding-up order given the viable buy-out alternative and the respondents' apparent ability and incentive to fund a buy-out; the court allowed the amendment summons substituting buy-out relief for reins…
24 Feb 2014

FANCYMIND INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS

Citation

FANCYMIND INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW375/2011

The applications to strike out the winding-up petitions were dismissed because it is not plain and obvious that the petitions cannot succeed: on the pleadings and affidavits taken in the petitioners' favour there is a sufficiently strong connection between the companies and Hong Kong (assets, central management, shareholders' connection and locus of disputes), a reasonable possibility of benefit to petitioners, and persons interested in the assets within the court's jurisdiction; the court may consider group affairs and beneficial owners despite BVI corporate vehicles; matters require trial.
24 Feb 2014

WINBLESS INC v. SILVER SHADOW COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WINBLESS INC v. SILVER SHADOW COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW370/2011

The strike-out applications failed because on the pleaded material and disputed facts taken in favour of petitioners it is not plain and obvious that the petitions cannot succeed: the Companies and their group demonstrate a sufficiently strong connection with Hong Kong (substantial assets here, group managed from Hong Kong, shareholders/directing minds resident here), there is a reasonable possibility of benefit to petitioners and persons interested fall within court's jurisdiction, and the matter requires trial rather than summary disposal.