Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation of private company shares

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2013

Z v. X

Citation

Z v. X
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2011

The Husband's application for leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were fact-specific and he failed to adduce evidence; the Intervener was granted leave to appeal as of right because she claimed proprietary beneficial ownership of 83.1% of NAIGL shares and evidence showed the shares exceeded HK$1,000,000, subject to payment of HK$400,000 into Court as security within 30 days; a partial stay of execution was granted to the extent of HK$150,000,000 conditional on the Husband paying HK$50,000,000 into Court within 30 days, with no stay as to the balance; the court found that 83.…
4 Aug 2004

LACHLAN JAMES CHRISTIE v. LEE DUN SHING

Citation

LACHLAN JAMES CHRISTIE v. LEE DUN SHING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7857/2002

On the facts the court found no real market for the AGHL shares at the date of breach; defendant failed to prove he made credible post-breach offers or that realistic alternative purchasers existed; plaintiff took reasonable mitigation steps; expert NAV valuation (HK$29.42 per AGHL share = US$3.77) was accepted and damages were assessed at 1,666 shares × US$3.77 = US$43,719.18, plus interest and costs.
8 Aug 2002

BILL CHAO KEH LUNG v. DON XIA

Citation

BILL CHAO KEH LUNG v. DON XIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9289/2000

The defendant's 3 June 1999 agreement divested him of the Teleway shares he had contracted to sell and thereby put him beyond realistic ability to perform; that conduct constituted repudiation. The plaintiff's subsequent refusal to pay the fourth instalment, viewed in the context of the parties' post‑renunciation communications, amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of that repudiation. Damages were assessed by reference to market value at the contractual delivery date less the contract price, the judge valuing each Teleway share at US$26.525 and awarding US$495,750 plus interest and costs.
17 Mar 1999

LEE WING KIM v. LEE TAK YEE

Citation

LEE WING KIM v. LEE TAK YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12428/1998

The defendant failed to establish that it would be just to order security; the plaintiff's 100 PEL shares, given the defendant's acknowledged control and willingness to subscribe at the directors' valuation, provided adequate realizable security covering the claimed amount, so the application for security was dismissed.
28 Jan 1994

CHAN MIU CHEUNG v. PRAGUE ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN MIU CHEUNG v. PRAGUE ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV172/1992

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the 3rd Defendant and set aside all orders against her because there were no pleaded allegations of wrongdoing against her and the record contained no basis for equitable relief against her; the Court held that a claim for interest may be properly stated in the prayer where the pleaded facts in the Statement of Claim, if proved, would give rise to liability for interest under s.48(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance; the trial judge's valuation of damages (approximately $4 per share; total $176,225) and exercise of discretion on interest (10% from date…
11 Mar 1983

ROBERT YUNG PAK LIANG v. LENA YUNG DAI MING

Citation

ROBERT YUNG PAK LIANG v. LENA YUNG DAI MING
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC309/1980

Appeal limited to issues in the notice; where s.7 factors and evidence show the wife cannot reasonably be expected to be self-supporting, maintenance must reflect that and not be reduced to coerce employment; given the Registrar's findings and husband's nondisclosure, maintenance should be increased to $4,500 per month and costs awarded to the wife; the court will not entertain challenge to the lump sum where not in the notice of appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

Z v. X

LACHLAN JAMES CHRISTIE v. LEE DUN SHING

BILL CHAO KEH LUNG v. DON XIA

LEE WING KIM v. LEE TAK YEE

CHAN MIU CHEUNG v. PRAGUE ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS

ROBERT YUNG PAK LIANG v. LENA YUNG DAI MING