趙春雨 and Antoher v. 裘麗虹 and Others

HCA 3071/2016

[2020] HKCFI 2787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 3071 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.I now give my judgment with brief reasons.

The Parties 

2.The main parties are all based on the Mainland.  They are the 1st plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants who are wife and husband.

3.The main dispute arises out of a joint venture with the Guangzhou Metro Corporation to develop a piece of land in Guangzhou which started in as early as 1993. There is a lot of background to this matter.  For present purposes, I do not need or propose to go into it in any detail.

4.Basically, this is a shareholders’ dispute concerning the 3rd defendant, which is a Hong Kong company.

5.As a result of certain agreement in 2008 between the camp of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs on the one hand and the camp of the 1st and 2nd defendants on the other hand, the 1st plaintiff became the 60 per cent shareholder holding 6,000 shares and one of the two directors of the 3rd defendant.

6.The 1st defendant was the 40 per cent shareholder holding 4,000 shares and the other director of the 3rd defendant.

The Dispute

7.It is alleged by the defendants as follows:

(1) On 8 June 2015, the 2nd defendant was appointed as a director of the 3rd defendant by a written resolution of the directors bearing the signature of the 1st plaintiff.

(2) On 8 June 2015, the 1st defendant transferred 3,000 of her 4,000 shares in the 3rd defendant to the 4th defendant.  A board resolution bearing the 1st plaintiff’s signature approved the transfer.

(3) On 25 September 2015, the 1st plaintiff’s directorship in the 3rd defendant was terminated by reason of a letter of resignation signed by himself.

(4) On 25 September 2015, the 1st plaintiff’s 6,000 shares were transferred to the 4th defendant by way of an instrument of transfer signed by himself.

(5) On 3 June 2016, the 6th defendant was appointed as a director of the 3rd defendant.

(6) On 15 July 2016, the 4th defendant transferred its 3,000 shares in the 3rd defendant to the 5th defendant (a company controlled by the 6th defendant) for a consideration of $3,000.

8.The 1st plaintiff has denied knowledge and consent of all the six transactions referred to above.  He has further given evidence to the effect that all the documents purporting to bear his signatures relied upon by the 1st to 4th defendants in support of the said transactions have been forged.  Hence, all the alleged transactions are void and have no legal effect.  The 1st plaintiff has in fact reported the matter of forgery to the police in Hong Kong, although the police has not yet taken any action.

9.The plaintiffs have adduced the expert report of Mr Leung Sze-chung who has given evidence to the effect that all the said documents relied on by the 1st to 4th defendants bear the forged signatures of the 1st plaintiff. By an Order of Madam Justice Linda Chan made on 13 July 2020, the attendance of Mr Leung Sze-chung at the trial was dispensed with.

10.The defendants have not filed any expert report in rebuttal.

The Course of the Trial and Related Matters

11.The 5th and 6th defendants never filed any defence and counterclaim of their own. They were nevertheless represented on the record by Messrs Chin & Associates, Solicitors who also acted for the 1st to 4th defendants.

12.On 30 September 2020, Messrs Chin & Associateswere granted a declaration by Deputy High Court Judge Man, SC, that they had ceased to act for the defendants.

13.Before the trial commenced this morning, my clerk called out the names of the defendants outside the courtroom and no one responded.

14.Hence, the defendants are unrepresented and absent for the trial today.

15.Ms Miranda Li, counsel for the plaintiffs, opened her case and she called the 1st plaintiff as her witness.  The 1st plaintiff confirmed the truth of his detailed witness statement dated 15 July 2019 which refuted the case of the 1st to 4th defendants and proved the case of the plaintiffs.

16.I have no difficulty in accepting both the evidence of the 1st plaintiff and the evidence of Mr Leung Sze-chung.

17.I find as a fact that the 1st plaintiff had no knowledge and had not given his approval to any of the said transactions as alleged by the defendants.  I further find that the said documents alleged by the defendants to be bearing the signatures of the plaintiff have been forged and are void and of no legal effect.

18.In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiffs have proved their case against all the defendants as pleaded in the re-amended statement of claim.

19.In the circumstances, I also dismiss the counterclaim of the 1st to 4th defendants.

20.As mentioned above, the 5th and 6th defendants have not filed any defence and counterclaim.

21.I therefore give judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against all the defendants in the terms of the draft relief in the Chinese language submitted by Ms Li and amended, approved and signed by me as annexed to this judgment.

Ms Miranda Li, instructed by Bryan Chan & Co, for the 1st to 2nd Plaintiffs

The 1st to 6th Defendants were not represented and did not appear

Annexure

第一及第二原告要求

以下法庭宣告:

1. 第一原告是現時及自2008年6月6日起第三被告6000股的註冊法定和實益股東。所謂於2015年9月25日第一原告轉讓該6000股予第四被告的股份轉讓並未發生，其有關的第三被告的書面決議是無效及沒有法律效力;

2.     第一原告是現時及自2008年6月6日起第三被告之公司董事。所謂於2015年9 月25日第一原告的辭職並未發生，其有關的第三被告的書面決議是無效及沒有法律效力;

3. 第三被告所謂於2015年6月8日對第二被告及所謂於2016年6 月3日對第六被告作出的公司董事委任及其有關的書面決議是無效及沒有任何法律效力;

4. 第三被告所謂於2015年6月8日批准第一被告轉讓3000股予第四被告的股份轉讓的有關書面決議是無效及沒有法律效力。第四被告在第三被告的公司股東名冊中作為股東的註冊是無效及沒有法律效力;

5. 第三被告所謂於2016年7月15日或其他日期批准第四被告轉讓3000股予第五被告的股份轉讓的有關書面決議是無效及沒有法律效力。第五被告在第三被告的公司股東名冊中作為股東的註冊是無效及沒有法律效力;

6. 所有由任何或所有被告及/或其僱員、其代表或代理人或以其他方式向公司註冊處提交的有關第一原告辭去其第三被告的董事職位、第一原告轉讓其所持6000 股第三被告股份、第二被告於2015 年6月8日及第六被告於2016年6月3日被委任為第三被告的公司董事、第一被告於2015年6月8日轉讓予第四被告的 3000股第三被告股份、及/或第四被告於2016年7月15 日或其他日期轉讓予第五被告的3000股第三被告股份的所有有關文件在提交時及仍然為虛假文件

以下禁制令:

7. 禁止第二被告及第六被告(不論是其本人、其代理人或以其他方式)行使董事職權及/或向他人及/或公眾表示第二被告及/或第六被告為第三被告的董事;

8. 禁止第四被告及第五被告(不論是其公司、其僱員、其代理人或以其他方式) 向他人及/或公眾表示第四被告及/或第五被告為第三被告的股東;

9. 除上文第1項另有規定外，禁止第一、第二、第四、第五及第六被告，直至 2008年協議和2008年補充協議的完成，不論是其本人、其公司、其僱員、代理人或以其他方式對第三被告股份作任何形式的轉讓、出售、抵押、質押、減少、處置或以其他方式處理第三被告的任何或所有股份和/或該股份相關的任何權益;

以下命令:

10. 指示第三被告向公司註冊處更正公司註冊內有關第三被告的資料，令到

(a) 第一原告被真實及準確地記載及顯示為自2008年6月6 日起第三被告的 6000股股東;

(b) 第一原告被真實及準確地記載及顯示為自2008年6月6 日起第三被告的董事;

(c) 第二被告及第六被告並非記載第三被告的董事;

(d) 第四被告及第五被告並非記載為第三被告的股東。

11. 本案訟費須由第一、第二、第四、第五及第六被告支付予第一及第二原告, 如未能同意金額則由法庭釐定。