Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Share charge enforcement

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2024

GUANGZHOU ZHOUTOUZUI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SUN ZHICHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1940
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1039/2023

No triable issue: the Court held Mr Meng had authority (usual authority by office and, in any event, ratification by the HK Branch's conduct), the Deed of Appointment was validly executed under s20(2) CPO by virtue of the LS mark and attendant wording or alternatively valid under hand pursuant to the Share Charge, and therefore the defendants cannot raise an arguable defence; summary judgment granted for the Company.
20 Oct 2022

TUENBO CO LTD v. CHEUNG SUNG LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2019

DHCJ Au‑Yeung held that the Authority Issue in HCA 566/2019 had been finally determined by DHCJ Stock SC on the strike-out summons and it would be an abuse of process to re‑open that issue; accordingly the Court refused to order a preliminary issue or consolidation, but ordered a stay of HCA 566/2019 pending resolution of HCA 2095/2016, with findings in HCA 2095/2016 to bind HCA 566/2019 and liberty to apply.
20 Oct 2022

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2095/2016

The Court held that the Authority Issue in HCA 566/2019 had been finally determined by DHCJ Stock SC such that re‑litigating it in HCA 566/2019 would be an abuse of process; accordingly the Court declined to order a preliminary issue or to order the two actions to be tried together but exercised case management discretion to stay HCA 566/2019 pending resolution of HCA 2095/2016, with findings in HCA 2095/2016 to bind HCA 566/2019 and liberty to apply; costs to be in the cause with certificates for two counsel.
11 Mar 2022

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2095/2016

The court refused the Tuenbo Parties' application for partial summary judgment for redemption and for discharge of the interlocutory injunction because there exist multiple substantial, fact‑sensitive and contested issues (including quantum of indebtedness, composition of advances, allocation of proceeds, interest, apportionment and alleged breaches/variations) that cannot be resolved on affidavits and require trial, expert evidence and cross‑examination; leave to re‑amend the defence and counterclaim was allowed; costs ordered to Steadfast for the contested parts of the summons.
11 Jun 2021

TUENBO CO LTD v. CHEUNG SUNG LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1620
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2019

On construction of the Requisition in its full context (document wording, knowledge of the 2nd Share Charge, antecedent correspondence alleging default, and the statutory regime), an informed reader would understand SF was exercising rights as agent/attorney for the chargors; accordingly the strike‑out application failed and the appeal was dismissed. On the interlocutory summons, the balance of convenience favoured granting preservation and production for inspection and copying of TCL’s company books and records (with certain categories removed), because TCL must be permitted to comply with s…
31 Dec 2020

Z v. Y

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD22/2020

The applications were dismissed because the Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial grounds to dispute the debt or to establish that the court should exercise its residual discretion under r48(5)(d); the Respondent was entitled to enforce the Share Charge after default, the contention that the security’s value or the Respondent’s conduct made bankruptcy unjust was not supported by credible evidence, and the limited scope of a statutory demand application did not permit investigation of those substantive enforcement or valuation issues.
21 Dec 2017

DRAGON SUCCESS ENTERPRISE LTD v. AESO HOLDING LTD

Citation

DRAGON SUCCESS ENTERPRISE LTD v. AESO HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1647/2017

At interlocutory stage the court found plaintiffs had a good arguable case against Chan for breach of directors' fiduciary and common law duties, assets existed within jurisdiction and a real risk of dissipation could be inferred from non-compliance with disclosure orders; accordingly the Mareva injunction and ancillary disclosure were continued against Chan (with the monetary cap amended to HK$28,798,000) but the Mareva and preservation orders were discharged as against Cheung for lack of sufficient evidence of risk or involvement; preservation order against Chan was discharged due to lack o…
17 Aug 2017

GLORY EMPIRE GLOBAL LTD v. BATESON INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

GLORY EMPIRE GLOBAL LTD v. BATESON INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2017

The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiff established a real triable issue (notably potential waiver by the defendant) as to the validity of the Enforcement Notice; the court refused to stay the proceedings pending arbitration because only costs remained, arbitration was uncertain and might not resolve the costs question, and justice required a broad approach; on the existing materials it was impossible to say who would have prevailed so the court made no order as to costs and granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue.
6 Aug 2013

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2013

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the appeal had such strong prospects as to justify a stay, nor did he demonstrate a real risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory by enforcement of the specific performance order; accordingly the stay of execution for the specific performance/money order was refused. Enforcement of the share charge was permitted subject to the plaintiff giving an undertaking not to sell or otherwise dispose of the charged shares without three weeks' prior written notice to the defendant's solicitors, which the court accepted as adequate to mitigate any risk of p…
4 Jun 2013

MERIT APEX LTD v.BOWEN GROUP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MERIT APEX LTD v.BOWEN GROUP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA646/2013

There were serious issues to be tried as to whether the 22 January 2013 notice complied with the Share Charge enforcement requirements and whether the plaintiff was debarred from disputing the claimed loss; damages were inadequate for the plaintiff given the unique nature of the shares and the balance of convenience required preservation of the status quo, therefore an interim injunction restraining the 1st defendant from dealing with the ordinary shares was warranted.