Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Section 168a

  • 3 Feb 2016

    KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV4/2015

    The court treated the petition as a single event for costs purposes, rejected issue-based costs orders, accepted the petitioner's concession of a 20% global reduction as a fair reflection of unsuccessful issues (including section 168A), and ordered respondents to pay 80% of the petitioner's costs at each level; the request for a certificate for three counsel was refused as not sufficiently exceptional.

  • 27 Feb 2014

    CHINA ENERGY INDUSTRYDEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHINA PEOPLE (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    CHINA ENERGY INDUSTRYDEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHINA PEOPLE (HONG KONG) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW187/2013

    It was not plain and obvious on the material before the court that the petitions were unarguable; therefore the applications to strike out the petitions in their entirety were refused. However, there was no factual basis shown in the petitions or evidence to justify including a prayer for a winding-up order as alternative relief under s.168A, and the prayers for winding up were struck out. Costs orders were made: respondents to pay 80% of petitioners' costs on the substantive application, and applicants who sought to file additional evidence to pay the other party's costs for those applicatio…

  • 14 May 2008

    MEASURE-TECH INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES CO V. MAHR GMBH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    MEASURE-TECH INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES CO V. MAHR GMBH AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW451/2007

    At the interlocutory stage the court was not satisfied the winding-up claim could not succeed; striking out was inappropriate because it could not be shown the winding-up claim was unarguably bound to fail; accordingly the strike-out application was dismissed but the winding-up prayer was stayed sine die to protect the company while preserving the petitioner’s remedy.

  • 12 Mar 2008

    YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW133/2007

    The court ordered that the Yeungs pay the Tsangs' costs of the petitions to be taxed on the party and party basis and the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to be paid to the Tsangs and taxed on the indemnity basis (in default of agreement). The court refused to order the Yeungs personally to pay the provisional liquidators' remuneration and expenses, holding those costs should be borne by the companies as part of the liquidation; no order was made as to costs of the costs hearing. The orders rested on findings that the cross-petitions were largely unfounded (justifying indemnity costs) whi…

  • 12 Mar 2008

    BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

    Citation
    BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW49/2006

    The court ordered that the Yeungs pay the Tsangs the costs of the Tsangs' petitions on the party and party basis and pay the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to the Tsangs to be taxed on an indemnity basis; the remuneration and expenses of the provisional liquidators are not to be ordered to be paid personally by the Yeungs but are to be borne by the companies (i.e. form part of the liquidation costs); no order as to costs was made for the costs hearing itself.

  • 12 Mar 2008

    BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

    Citation
    BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW52/2006

    The court ordered that the Yeungs pay the Tsangs' costs of the petitions on a party and party basis and the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to the Tsangs on an indemnity basis (both taxed if not agreed), because the Yeungs' cross-petitions were largely without substance while the petitions involved facets on which the Tsangs did not succeed; the court declined to order the Yeungs personally to pay the provisional liquidators' remuneration and expenses, treating such costs as liabilities of the companies and refusing the exceptional relief sought against the Yeungs personally; no order as…

  • 30 Jan 2008

    KWOK TAK MING JOSEPH v. COSMO-TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    KWOK TAK MING JOSEPH v. COSMO-TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW42/2008

    The interim injunctions were refused because the petitioner sought primarily a buy-out or winding-up (making the restraining injunction inappropriate), there was no pleaded right to remain as director, the ex parte application was filed late without satisfactory justification, and there was no real risk of destruction or concealment of documents to justify preservation or inspection orders.

  • 26 Oct 2007

    ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP843/2007

    Applying authorities and business reality, petitions relating to dormant shelf companies failed as a matter of law because none of the pleaded misconduct constituted conduct of those companies' affairs; petitions concerning certain property-holding companies, Sparkling Wine, Step Further and Insomnia Singapore could not be struck out at threshold as it was not plain and obvious that the alleged interdependence and alleged interference could not constitute unfair prejudice to those companies; accordingly some petitions were struck out, amendments permitted to the remainder, and consolidation w…

  • 5 Mar 2007

    CHENG YIN HUNG v. CHOW HUNG FU AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHENG YIN HUNG v. CHOW HUNG FU AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW279/2006

    The petitioner abandoned the s.168A claim and proceeded only under s.177(1)(f); the respondents expressly consented to winding up on the basis that the relationship had irretrievably broken down; accordingly the court exercised its statutory power under s.177(1)(f) to order the winding up of Wintax Company Limited and, because the winding-up order made further discovery unnecessary, revoked the prior discovery order under RHC Ord.24 r.17.

  • 3 Sept 2003

    CHEUNG POH CHOO v. CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHEUNG POH CHOO v. CHIN LAN HONG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP4751/2002

    The court held that s168A relief requires conduct in the affairs of the company subject to the petition; allegations that plainly concern other companies and do not affect the subject company's affairs must be struck out. Accordingly many paragraphs and annexes in the nine nearly identical petitions that relate exclusively to other companies were struck out, leaving only material that can properly found s168A relief in respect of each subject company.