Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 152fa companies ordinance

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2016

LEUNG CHUNG PUN v. MASTERWISE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG CHUNG PUN v. MASTERWISE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2681/2012

The court's power under s152FA extends only to documents owned by or belonging to the specified corporation; because the plaintiff did not establish that the outstanding documents belonged to Masterwise, they were not part of Masterwise's records for s152FA and Masterwise was not required to produce them under the Inspection Order.
27 Jul 2012

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2143/2011

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the respondents had no direct evidence that the applicant leaked to Caixin and the applicant denied the allegation on oath; the dispute over beneficial ownership was not materially probative of bona fides given the applicant was the registered 30% owner and the apparent support of the beneficial owner; allowing cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose and would undermine the expeditious statutory procedure under s152FA.
11 Jul 2012

TALAL EL MAKDESSI v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD

Citation

TALAL EL MAKDESSI v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1054/2011

The court held that Mr El Makdessi satisfied s152FA: he sought inspection in good faith and for proper purposes germane to his status as a shareholder (valuation of his existing shareholding and assessing options), and the historical accounting records sought were likely relevant and useful to that commercial assessment; ongoing English proceedings and split discovery did not bar inspection under s152FA.
17 May 2012

CHEUNG TUNG LAN, TONY v. YANG YONGDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG TUNG LAN, TONY v. YANG YONGDONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP447/2012

The application for inspection was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a proper purpose under s152FA (and thus did not meet the statutory test), sought overly broad and largely irrelevant categories of documents, and was not able to demonstrate a sufficiently reasonable case for investigation; consequentially costs were awarded to the defendants and the costs of the 1st–3rd defendants were ordered to be taxed on a common fund basis.
9 May 2012

VERON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. RCG HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

VERON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. RCG HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP343/2011

The court found the plaintiff did not establish a case for investigation; the prospectus and public disclosures provided substantial, specific information about the Vast Base and Strong Aim transactions (including independent valuations and due diligence material) which undermined the reliability of the tabloid article and investigators' report; therefore the statutory thresholds of good faith and proper purpose under s152FA were not satisfied and the application for inspection was dismissed.
30 Aug 2011

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HUNG KIN SANG RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HUNG KIN SANG RAYMOND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1602/2010

The plaintiff was acting in good faith and established a proper purpose under s152FA to investigate suspected misapplication of company assets; good faith and proper purpose are separate inquiries (subjective belief and objective assessment); the court will grant an inspection order confined to records of the company in its possession (including subsidiary documents that form part of company records) while excluding documents protected by legal professional privilege and limiting disclosure of personal data under the PDPO; accordingly specified categories of company records for 2006 to date w…
8 Jul 2011

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

Citation

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1956/2009

Contempt could not be established because the Court of Appeal order had not been perfected and served on the defendant within the 14‑day compliance period relied upon by the plaintiff; accordingly the committal application failed though the defendant's compliance was dilatory and the court issued specific directions for compliance rather than punishment.

Hong Kong Case Law

LEUNG CHUNG PUN v. MASTERWISE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

TALAL EL MAKDESSI v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD

CHEUNG TUNG LAN, TONY v. YANG YONGDONG AND OTHERS

VERON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. RCG HOLDINGS LTD

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HUNG KIN SANG RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI