Chinaculture.Com Ltd (Suing on behalf of Itself and All Other Shareholders in Cnt Group Ltd, Except Prime Surplus Limited) v. Lam Ting Ball, Paul and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2902/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 September 2020.

1. On 24 July 2020 I handed down a decision, which in [9] I set out the matters on which corporate finance opinion evidence could be adduced. I allowed the parties the opportunity to comment further on them. The Plaintiff has provided its comments in the form of Mr Yu’s submissions, which take the form of a critique of the formulation and an attempt to re-introduce an issue (5), which I have already rejected. Other than for correcting a spelling mistake in [3(1)] I do not think that there is any

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 2902/2017[2020] HKCFI 2305
Court
High Court CFI
Date04 Sep 2020
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2902/2017

[2020] HKCFI 2305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2902 OF 2017

________________

BETWEEN    
  CHINACULTURE.COM LIMITED (suing on behalf Plaintiff
  of itself and all other shareholders in CNT GROUP  
  LIMITED, except Prime Surplus Limited)  

and

  LAM TING BALL, PAUL 1st Defendant
  TSUI HO CHUEN PHILIP 2nd Defendant
  CHONG CHI KWAN 3rd Defendant
  CNT GROUP LIMITED (北海集團有限公司) 4th Defendant

________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers
Date of Written Submissions by the Plaintiff: 4 August 2020
Date of Written Submissions by the 1st to 3rd Defendants: 25 August 2020
Date of Decision: 4 September 2020

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.On 24 July 2020 I handed down a decision, which in [9] I set out the matters on which corporate finance opinion evidence could be adduced. I allowed the parties the opportunity to comment further on them. The Plaintiff has provided its comments in the form of Mr Yu’s submissions, which take the form of a critique of the formulation and an attempt to re-introduce an issue (5), which I have already rejected. Other than for correcting a spelling mistake in [3(1)] I do not think that there is any merit in the critique and I am not persuaded that my formulation will benefit from any of the changes suggested by the Plaintiff. I would note that the Defendant is content with my formulation of the issues.

2.I will order:

(1) The parties do exchange expert reports on the corporate finance issues by 5pm on 30 September 2020.

(2) The parties’ respective experts do have a without prejudice meeting within seven days of exchange of reports for the purpose of preparing a joint statement indicating those parties of their evidence on which they are in agreement and those on which they are not.

(3) The parties to file the joint statement by 5pm on 14 October 2020.

(4) The costs of the case management conference on 2 July 2020 and the further submissions submitted by the parties leading to this decision be costs in the cause.

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

Mr Benjamin Yu, SC and Mr MC Law, instructed by Baker & Mckenzie, for the plaintiff

Mr Jat Sew-Tong, SC, Mr Laurence Li, SC and Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Ince & Co, for the 1st to 3rd defendants