14 Jan 2016
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2191/2014
D1's intervention summonses were dismissed because he failed to demonstrate a legal interest directly related to the subject matter of the striking out summonses under either limb of Order 15 rule 6(2)(b), service on D1 was not required under Order 32 r3 given the nature of the application, inherent jurisdiction did not justify intervention, and permitting intervention would overburden and complicate the interlocutory proceedings and risk privileged disclosure.