Joseph Robert Richardson Jr v. Rene Villeneuve and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1799/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 October 2021.
1. I have before me an originating summons dated 19 October 2020 seeking the following orders.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCMP 1799/2020 [2021] HKCFI 3144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1799 OF 2020 ________________
________________
________________ Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 20 October 2021 Date of Decision: 20 October 2021 __________________ D E C I S I O N __________________ 1.I have before me an originating summons dated 19 October 2020 seeking the following orders.
2.I am satisfied that the originating summons has been duly served on the two defendants. In the case of the 1st Defendant this was by way of substituted service pursuant to an order granted by Master Man on 15 July 2021. 3.The application arises in the following circumstances. 4.Initially, both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were 50:50 shareholders of the Company. Each of them held 5,000 shares in the Company. However, as the Plaintiff is a holder of a United States passport, the Company was unable to open bank accounts. As a practical way of resolving the aforesaid difficulties:
5.The net result of these back-to-back transactions was that (1) whilst on the face of the records, the 1st Defendant became the sole owner of the Company, (2) the reality was that the Company was still 50:50 owned by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. Disputes then unfortunately ensued between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. It will suffice to note that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant’s relationship has now completely broken down. Eventually, on 27 August 2020, the Plaintiff demanded the 1st Defendant return the shares to the Plaintiff. When this demand was not entertained, a solicitors’ letter was issued on 9 October 2020. On 9 October 2020, the Plaintiff’s solicitors also wrote to the Company, demanding the Company to register the Plaintiff’s name in its register of shareholders. The 1st Defendant did not provide any substantive response. Instead, the 1st Defendant resigned from the board of directors. Subsequently, the Company Secretary also resigned. 6.I am satisfied that this matter is sufficiently straight forward and the evidence sufficiently certain, that it is appropriate for the court to grant the declaration that is sought without requiring a formal trial, particularly as its seeming clear that neither of the Defendants wish to participate in the proceedings and contest the Plaintiff’s claim. 7.I am also satisfied that given the recalcitrance of the Defendants it is appropriate to grant the 2nd Order dealing with registration of the share transfer. By s633 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622), the Court may make an order for rectification where the name of any person is, without sufficient cause, entered in or omitted from the register of members of a company. The discretion was exercised in the applicant’s favour in Re Quesco Systems Limited[1]. There, the share was registered in the name of the 2nd defendant for the benefit of the applicant. Under the declaration of trust, the 2nd defendant was to transfer to the applicant the share whenever directed. When the 2nd defendant (i.e. the nominee) can no longer be found, Kwan J (as she then was) ordered rectification in favour of the applicant. Likewise, in Re Brightex Corporation Limited[2], the declaration of trust provided that the 2nd respondent held the share as a nominee of the applicant. Although the instrument of transfer had not been executed (and the 1st respondent apparently was in Italy), I held that “for all practical purposes” there has been a valid transfer of title to the applicant. Rectification was accordingly ordered. 8.The present case is similar to the two aforesaid cases:
9.I will make an order in the terms of the originating summons and grant general liberty to apply. The Plaintiff has sought a summary assessment of his costs of the application. I assess on a summary basis the costs at HK$195,000. I order that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the costs, which are payable forthwith.
Mr Martin Lau, instructed by Angela Wang & Co, for the plaintiff The 1st defendant was not represented and did not appear The 2nd defendant was not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case