9 Nov 2018
Not determinable from the provided extract: the text discusses principles and submissions but does not record the court's final ruling on enforceability or specific relief within the supplied material.
16 Aug 2018
The court reaffirmed that interlocutory mandatory injunctions require a high degree of assurance of success at trial but that an exception permits granting relief where withholding it would risk greater injustice; applying established equitable principles, a contractual provision that effectively clogs the equity of redemption is void and the plaintiff may be entitled to relief against forfeiture, such that if the plaintiff establishes any of the identified grounds at trial he will succeed.
4 May 2017
The court continued the ex parte interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff established a serious question to be tried (termination by consent and entitlement to return of pledged shares), demonstrated a real risk of disposal of the shares such that damages would be inadequate, and secured the defendant's interest by paying the redemption sum into court, tipping the balance of convenience in the plaintiff's favour.
5 Mar 2012
The court continued the ex parte interim injunction in the same terms until trial or further order because there is a serious question to be tried on the alleged sale, pledge and subsequent transfer of the shares; the applicant's alleged non-disclosures were not established as material to the grant; and damages were an inadequate remedy given the practical difficulty of realising the large shareholding on the GEM board.
30 Oct 2007
The court found the plaintiff entitled to recover the computed outstanding sum of $604,987.92 with interest from 4 October 2005; the defendant was in default on expiry of the grant period and plaintiff's right to recover the debt had accrued by the claim date, but the conditional right to a pledge of 500,000 shares (which arises within 12 months after default) had not yet matured by the date of claim; the allotment claim for 85,000 shares was dismissed because the parties treated that agreement as cancelled.
25 Jun 2007
The bankruptcy order was made because the petitioner’s debt was undisputed, the debtor was unable to meet the debt presently, and the speculative or unproven prospects of recovery from pending or potential third‑party litigation do not justify refusing to make a bankruptcy order; matters of pursuing such litigation are for the trustee.
30 Jul 2004
The defendant's application was dismissed because the contractual provisions did not show an exclusive submission of jurisdiction to Texas, the defendant failed to demonstrate that Texas law or US securities law were central issues requiring a stay, the foreign law opinion relied on by the defendant lacked adequate analysis and did not establish disputed Texas law issues, there was no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application, and service was found to have been properly effected.