Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subscription agreement

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2016

ARCH CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEO TELEMEDIA LTD

Citation

ARCH CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEO TELEMEDIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1281/2015

Leave to adduce further evidence on appeal was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the hearing below; stay of execution was refused because the defendant failed to show strong grounds and gave unsupported assertions about plaintiffs' assets; indemnity costs were awarded because the summonses were wholly unmeritorious and ignored clearly relevant material (the defendant's Announcement).
21 Feb 2005

JADE HARBOUR LTD v. ELTONES PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JADE HARBOUR LTD v. ELTONES PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19549/1998

The court held that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong because its sole director and controlling shareholder managed and controlled it from Hong Kong and its books were kept in Hong Kong; accordingly the application for security for costs under Order 23, rule 1(1)(a) failed and the appeal was dismissed; alternatively, even if the plaintiff were ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, the court would have refused security for costs in the exercise of discretion given the plaintiff's prospects and the 2nd defendant's role.
14 Jan 2002

RE CIL HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

RE CIL HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW432/2001

The judge exercised discretion to grant a two-month adjournment because substantial progress had been made towards a scheme of arrangement, a large proportion of creditors had agreed in principle (75% by value, 50% by number), and the remaining steps (subscription agreement, audited accounts, Stock Exchange approval) were likely to be completed in the short adjournment period without evidence of culpable delay.
17 Aug 2000

PERENNIAL INVESTMENTS (H.K.) LTD. v. UNION BRIDGE INVESTMENT LTD.

Citation

PERENNIAL INVESTMENTS (H.K.) LTD. v. UNION BRIDGE INVESTMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1528/2000

The application was dismissed because the defendants raised bona fide contentions and triable issues—including the need to construe Clauses 6.1 and 6.13 of the Subscription Agreement and to receive expert evidence on accounting and mainland law—which made summary determination under O.14 inappropriate and entitled the defendants to leave to defend.
12 Apr 2000

HCK CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.

Citation

HCK CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW166/2000

The court granted validation under s.182 because the proposed subscription would bring an immediate cash benefit of $15,000,000 to the company; that legitimate benefit justified the validation despite evidence raising suspicions, with the court reserving any determination on the company's past conduct.
12 Apr 2000

EXCEL NOBEL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.

Citation

EXCEL NOBEL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW130/2000

The court granted validation under Section 182 because the proposed cash subscription of HK$15,000,000 constituted a clear benefit to the company; notwithstanding suspicions in the evidence, the order was made on that basis alone and the court reserved any adverse views on alleged improprieties.

Hong Kong Case Law

ARCH CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEO TELEMEDIA LTD

JADE HARBOUR LTD v. ELTONES PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER

RE CIL HOLDINGS LTD.

PERENNIAL INVESTMENTS (H.K.) LTD. v. UNION BRIDGE INVESTMENT LTD.

HCK CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.

EXCEL NOBEL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.