Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Costs of valuation

  • 6 Apr 2017

    DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1526/2013

    Decisions that finalise or form part of the Main Judgment do not require leave to appeal; interlocutory directions relating to a future valuation process (allocation of valuation costs and appointment/identity of valuers) are interlocutory and require leave to appeal; leave was refused on the merits for the proposed appeals from the March Decision and where leave was required it was not granted; applications for a stay of execution of the buy‑out order were dismissed because the appeal lacked sufficient strength to render the buy‑out order unsafe and the respondent could be protected and was…

  • 6 Apr 2017

    DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1528/2013

    Determinations finalizing the Main Judgment that go to the substance of the unfair prejudice remedy are to be treated as part of the final judgment (no leave required). Directions solely concerning the future valuation process (identity of valuers and costs allocation) are interlocutory and in principle require leave. Leave to appeal in respect of the relevant parts of the March Decision was refused on the merits. The summons for leave and for a stay of execution was dismissed and execution of the buy-out order will not be stayed; costs awarded to the petitioner.

  • 11 Aug 2009

    CHOW YAT TIM v. TANG HING KEUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHOW YAT TIM v. TANG HING KEUNG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP418/2008

    Valuation of the petitioner's shares must be as at 29 August 2007 (date of presentation of the petition) because (a) that was the date the petitioner elected to treat the conduct as destroying the basis of the joint undertaking and seek relief, (b) the court did not find the rights issue and resulting dilution to be unfairly prejudicial and therefore it would be improper to disregard the allotment, and (c) valuing at the date of judgment would unfairly reward the petitioner for post-dilution expansion to which he did not contribute. The valuer is to value by reference to assets, profitability…

  • 12 Sept 2008

    RE PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD

    Citation
    RE PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW322/2006

    The court construed the order as requiring the parties to cooperate and act reasonably in appointing a valuer; the correct course is to offer Grant Thornton appointment on the identical capped terms tendered by Baker Tilley and, if Grant Thornton refuses, to appoint Baker Tilley; inspection must proceed with provision of soft-copy documents on DVD at a reasonable charge and the parties must jointly approach the bank to establish requirements for releasing the petitioner from guarantees.