Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proxy voting

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2019

WHC LTD t/a WINE HIGH CLUB AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG WINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP758/2019

The court found the exclusion of the 77 new members who had applied and paid before the stated deadline was wrong and sufficiently material to require setting aside the AGM election for the Executive Committee; other complaints (including alleged bad faith and replacement of election helpers) were not made out; the appropriate remedy was to declare the EC election void, order a new AGM/EGM within 60 days and maintain the Old EC (including Ho) until that meeting; costs to be no order nisi.
3 Dec 2013

WONG PAK SUM v.HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD

Citation

WONG PAK SUM v.HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2946/2013

The court held that "special business" is distinct from business requiring a special resolution: special business affects notice and proxy form obligations but does not by itself require a three‑quarters majority; absent a statutory or articles‑based requirement, matters are passed by ordinary resolution. The third resolution (letting of property) was not a matter requiring special resolution and was validly passed; the originating summons was dismissed.
20 Jun 2013

DISCOVERY BAY SERVICES MANAGEMENT LTD v. HANNON LTD

Citation

DISCOVERY BAY SERVICES MANAGEMENT LTD v. HANNON LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM301/2012

The Sub-DMC permits the manager to appoint a representative without prescribed formalities so the appointment letter signed by a director was valid despite lacking a company chop; clause 6(c) of the Sub-DMC restricts proxies for individual owners to spouse or adult family members so proxies appointing non-family members were invalid; the chairman acted wrongly in dissolving the meeting without canvassing the meeting and accordingly the 2nd part of the meeting and the voting result were valid; declaratory relief was appropriate to remove recurring uncertainty.
16 Aug 2007

BILLION TOP GARMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. CHELTON FINANCE LTD

Citation

BILLION TOP GARMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. CHELTON FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA742/2006

Because the defendant accepted liability for the costs and the circumstances justified a gross sum assessment rather than a detailed taxation, the court fixed the costs of the summons at $116,500 on a gross sum assessment and ordered that sum to be paid forthwith.
22 Aug 2006

RE: AU WAI YING

Citation

RE: AU WAI YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI322/2006

Section 20K(2) is properly read as applying to the implementation and supervision of voluntary arrangements that have taken effect; it does not extend to arrangements not yet approved. The nominee must exercise her own judgment and discretion when confronted with contradictory proxy instructions and may refuse to accept or act on such proxies. The court will not supplant the nominee's functions but will grant limited directions and procedural relief as appropriate.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM516/2001

The contributions were not calculated in accordance with the DMC; Building Orders do not displace the DMC allocation rules; respondents failed to prove invalidity of the meeting or proxy irregularity and, having allowed substantial works and payments, are estopped from challenging; therefore the Applicant's claim for contributions and registration of charges fails and the charges must be vacated.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM508/2001

The applicant failed to calculate contributions in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant and did not establish a valid statutory basis for departing from the DMC; objections to proxies were also time-barred by delay and estoppel; accordingly the claim based on incorrectly calculated contributions fails and the charges registered against respondents' properties must be discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM513/2001

The Applicant failed to calculate contributions in accordance with the deed of mutual covenant and did not establish any lawful basis (including under the Building Management Ordinance) to override the DMC; therefore the claim for contributions and the charges based on those calculations were unlawful and must be dismissed and discharged.
12 Oct 2002

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNGKING MANSIONS v. SHAMDASANI MURLI PESSUMAL AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM504/2001

Because the contributions were not calculated in accordance with the deed of mutual covenant and the Applicant failed to establish a lawful basis for overriding the DMC by relying solely on Building Orders, the Applicant's claims based on those calculations fail and the charges based on them must be discharged.
20 Dec 2001

WONG WAN HUEN FREDERICK AND OTHERS v. W HAKING ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG WAN HUEN FREDERICK AND OTHERS v. W HAKING ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1166/2000

The application to strike out was dismissed because section 168A grants the court a wide discretion to order buy‑out relief that can affect members who are not alleged to have committed wrongdoing; at the preliminary stage, without full evidence about voting, share control and surrounding circumstances, it would be improper to remove the judge's discretion by striking out the petition as against the 6th respondent.