Fok Lai Lor Nora v. Fok Ying Tung Ming Yuan Development Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 974/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 March 2020.

1. On 4 March 2020 I handed down my decision in respect of the Plaintiff’s application to set aside a special resolution of the Company passed on 24 March 2017.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCMP 974/2017[2020] HKCFI 463
Court
High Court CFI
Date11 Mar 2020
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 974/2017

[2020] HKCFI 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 974 OF 2017

________________

  IN THE MATTER of Fok Ying Tung Ming Yuan Development Company Limited (霍英東銘源發展有限公司)
 

and

  IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622)

________________

BETWEEN    
  FOK LAI LOR NORA Plaintiff

AND

  FOK YING TUNG MING YUAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(霍英東銘源發展有限公司)
Defendant

________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers
Date of Written Submission by the Plaintiff: 11 March 2020
Date of Decision: 11 March 2020
Date of Reasons for Decision: 13 March 2020

___________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

___________________________________

1.On 4 March 2020 I handed down my decision in respect of the Plaintiff’s application to set aside a special resolution of the Company passed on 24 March 2017.

2.The Plaintiff has sought a stay of my decision pending a proposed appeal.  As this matter has come on during the period in which the court is operating on a restricted basis as a result of the disruption caused by Covid-19 I will deal with the application on an ex parte basis on the papers.

3.I have read the skeleton argument of counsel.  I accept for present purposes that any appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted.  In this circumstance it is necessary for the Plaintiff to show that she has an arguable appeal.  In my view the grounds advanced in counsel’s skeleton do not satisfy this criteria.  My decision involved the exercise of a discretion under s221 & 222 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 622.  It does not seem to me that the Plaintiff has demonstrated an arguable case for the Court of Appeal overturning my decision.

4.I, therefore, dismiss the application with the costs payable forthwith to the Defendant.

(Jonathan Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Winston Poon SC and Ms Janet Ho, instructed by Clifford Chance, for the plaintiff