Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tailgunner clause

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2019

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1050
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV207/2016

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the framed question lacked reasonable arguability and was too vague and fact-specific; the plaintiff attempted to resurrect arguments not previously advanced and sought to reframe its case on appeal, failing the high threshold for leave under s22(1)(b). The Court therefore declined to remit the issue to the Court of Final Appeal and awarded costs to the defendant.
28 May 2019

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 606
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV207/2016

Clause 3(i) must be read as requiring a link between the advisor's introduction and the transaction completed; the clause contemplates a transaction 'introduced by' Eminent and thus demands that Eminent introduced the completed transaction before earning the fee. On the facts Eminent did not introduce the completed Dentsply transaction and so is not entitled to the claimed success fee.
23 Sept 2016

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION

Citation

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1292/2011

On the facts the court found DIO failed to prove the pleaded misrepresentations (lack of contemporaneous documentation, weak witness credibility and inherent improbabilities), and DIO failed to show acceptance of any repudiatory breach. As a matter of contractual construction and implied term the FAA required that the advisor be the effective cause of a transaction to earn the 3% success fee (and that requirement applies to post-termination tail period absent explicit language to the contrary). Eminent failed to prove it was the effective cause of the Dentsply transaction, so it was not entit…

Hong Kong Case Law

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION

EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD v. DIO CORPORATION