Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Shadow/de facto director

  • 24 Mar 2023

    HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 851
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA494/2015

    The court held the proposed amendments to plead laches were not unarguably bad and granted leave to amend generally because the pleadings sufficiently raised facts of delay and destruction of documents that could support a defence of laches; however specific proposed particulars alleging inability to contact certain witnesses and auditors (paragraph 10(6)) were disallowed because on their face any inability pre-dated the liquidators' appointment and therefore could not be said to result from the liquidator's delay; discovery of liquidators' communications with third parties was refused as irr…

  • 28 Oct 2008

    RE MR. JOHN MANNERS JARVIS, Q.C.

    Citation
    RE MR. JOHN MANNERS JARVIS, Q.C.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2011/2008

    Because the action involved questions of unusual difficulty and complexity connected to corporate governance and the Defendant's role, and because the applicant could add a significant dimension to resolving those issues, the court exercised its s.30 discretion to admit the overseas silk for the limited purposes of the strike out application and the application to amend; admission to appear in any appeal was refused as premature and the solicitors were directed to disclose inquiries made about suitable local leading counsel.

  • 5 Dec 2003

    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. WONG BUT SIT JASON AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. WONG BUT SIT JASON AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP203/2002

    The court found on the evidence and accepted the Official Receiver's submissions that the 1st respondent acted dishonestly, procured unsecured transfers benefiting a related off‑shore company, falsified accounting and thereby was unfit to be a director; the 2nd and 3rd respondents abdicated their duties and failed to ensure proper accounts and oversight, rendering them unfit though less culpable; applying Re Sevenoaks tariffs the court made disqualification orders for each respondent with durations reflecting their culpability and granted the 3rd respondent limited leave to act as director of…