Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA 2922/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2922 OF 2017

________________

BETWEEN
	CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED	1^st Plaintiff
	CONVOY COLLATERAL LIMITED	2^nd Plaintiff
	CSL SECURITIES LIMITED	3^rd Plaintiff
AND
	CHO KWAI CHEE ROY	1^st Defendant
	WONG LEE MAN QUINCY	2^nd Defendant
	MAK KWONG YIU MARK	3^rd Defendant
	YAN YE KAI BYRON	4^th Defendant
	FONG SUT SAM ROSETTA	5^th Defendant
	LAM CHI KEUNG	6^th Defendant
	MA YIU HO PETER	7^th Defendant
	CHAN NGAI SANG KENNY	8^th Defendant
	NG MEN KIT BILLY	9^th Defendant
	LEE DEREK HO YIN	10^th Defendant
	CHAN LAI YEE CHRISTIE	11^th Defendant
	POON HOR YEE AMY	12^th Defendant
	MA CHUN MING	13^th Defendant (discontinued)
	CHAN SZE LOON ALFRED	14^th Defendant (discontinued)
	HON SIU HONG	15^th Defendant
	LAM CHI YUNG PAUL	16^th Defendant
	WONG MAN SEK	17^th Defendant (discontinued)
	NG YAO KWOK	18^th Defendant
	CHAN WANG FAI ANDY	19^th Defendant
	CHEUNG WAN HUNG GILBERT	20^th Defendant
	LING KOON WAH	21^st Defendant
	EVER ROBUST HOLDINGS LIMITED	22^nd Defendant
	CHINA GREEN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED	23^rd Defendant
	CLASSICTIME INVESTMENTS LIMITED	24^th Defendant
	FASTEK INVESTMENTS LIMITED	25^th Defendant
	CHO KWAI YEE KEVIN	26^th Defendant
	KWOK HIU KWAN	27^th Defendant
	CHEN PEI XIONG	28^th Defendant
	HUI KA WAH RONNIE	29^th Defendant
	ATHENA POWER LIMITED	30^th Defendant
	CAPITAL MATE LIMITED	31^st Defendant
	CHINA DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES LIMITED	32^nd Defendant
	LUSTER WEALTH LIMITED	33^rd Defendant
	PERFECT GROWTH LIMITED	34^th Defendant
	TOWN HEALTH CORPORATE ADVISORY	35^th Defendant
	AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
	CHAN KA CHUNG	36^th Defendant
	LIN CHEUK FUNG	37^th Defendant
	LING WAI HOI	38^th Defendant
	POON CHUN YIN	39^th Defendant
	CHOI CHEE MING	40^th Defendant

________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 28 November 2018

Date of Decision: 28 November 2018

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.On 19 September 2018 I delivered my decision in respect of the application of Kevin Cho, the 26^th defendant, to strike out the prayer seeking relief against him in the Amended Statement of Claim. I struck out that part of the claim advanced in respect of what is defined in the pleading as “Circular Financing Arrangement”[1] but not the remainder of the claim. Mr Cho seeks leave to appeal my decision.

2.The plaintiffs have issued a notice of appeal challenging my decision in respect of the Circular Financing Arrangement. It seems to me that the plaintiffs’ appeal will necessarily involve a fairly detailed analysis of the claims generally advanced against Kevin Cho.

3.In these circumstances, given that the plaintiffs are going to appeal my decision, it seems to me to be sensible to grant Mr Cho leave in order that the Court of Appeal has the opportunity to review the decision generally. It seems to me almost necessarily that the Court of Appeal is likely to have to take some kind of view in respect of my decision in the plaintiffs’ favour when considering the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal, and it would be artificial and restrictive not to allow the Court of Appeal the opportunity, if it thought it appropriate, to interfere with my decision in the plaintiffs’ favour.

4.I will, therefore, grant leave to appeal, and order that the costs of this application be in the cause of the appeal.

5.I will also grant an extension of time for service of Mr Cho’s defence until 28 days after the Court of Appeal delivers its decision.