Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 11 service out

Legal area

Court

14 May 2020

VER, ROGER KEITH v. OKEX FINTECH CO LTD (formerly known as KIND CASTLE TRADING LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2439/2016

Material non-disclosure in the ex parte application was not established; the Version 8 Agreement remained a live issue between the plaintiff and D1 and there was evidence consistent with D2 acting as shadow director making him a proper party; the correct approach is to consider the position as at the date of the court's decision on the challenge with all affidavit evidence filed up to the hearing; applying those principles the court set aside the ex parte order dated 9 August 2017 but immediately re-granted leave to serve D2 out of the jurisdiction under Order 11 r.1(1)(c) and (d)(iii), and d…
11 Jul 2016

JANFUL LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINOSOFT TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JANFUL LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINOSOFT TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1613/2013

Ex parte leave to serve out was set aside because the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious issue to be tried (primary pleaded losses were, on the pleadings and in the absence of supporting evidence, reflective losses recoverable only by the JV company) and because there was material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage of highly material matters (possible PRC governing law and extensive PRC proceedings). The derivative action was not permitted to proceed because the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of company loss or control by wrongdoers sufficient to stifle corporate ac…
9 Oct 2015

DEYI INVESTMENT LTD v. MACJIN INFO-COM TEK., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DEYI INVESTMENT LTD v. MACJIN INFO-COM TEK., LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA587/2014

Claimant failed to demonstrate a good arguable case that Macjin had authority to bind LGD or that Mr Suh was employed by LGD in September 2013; the evidential record (including LGD personnel records and the Printout) showed only that Macjin was a registered customer and that Mr Suh ceased employment in August 2012; proposed amendment to plead Mr Suh as LGD employee would not meet the good arguable case threshold, therefore leave to serve out on LGD was set aside and amendment dismissed as to LGD; amendment allowed as between claimant and Macjin.
16 Jul 2010

EAST ASIA SATELLITE TELEVISION (HOLDINGS) LTD v. NEW COTAI, LLC AND OTHERS

Citation

EAST ASIA SATELLITE TELEVISION (HOLDINGS) LTD v. NEW COTAI, LLC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2189/2009

The court held that leave had been given for service of the Re‑Amended Writ but that many of EAST's claims were unsustainable: personal claims against directors for inducing their own company to breach the SPA failed absent pleaded bad faith (Said v Butt); multiple derivative claims failed because BVI and Macao law do not recognise multiple derivative actions (Konamaneni), and derivative claims seeking reflective loss were barred by the reflective loss principle (Johnson) and s.168A(2C). Material non‑disclosure in EAST's ex parte application was identified but it did not require setting aside…

Hong Kong Case Law

VER, ROGER KEITH v. OKEX FINTECH CO LTD (formerly known as KIND CASTLE TRADING LTD) AND ANOTHER

JANFUL LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINOSOFT TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

DEYI INVESTMENT LTD v. MACJIN INFO-COM TEK., LTD AND ANOTHER

EAST ASIA SATELLITE TELEVISION (HOLDINGS) LTD v. NEW COTAI, LLC AND OTHERS