Pacific Dunlop Garments Ltd v. Fundamental Global Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1655/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 April 2024.

1. Mr Chang SC has fairly accepted that the only link between Chan and Lee with the alleged contemptuous action is their directorship of the 1 st to 3 rd Defendants. There is no evidence, or any basis for the Applicant to assert presently, that Chan and Lee indeed remained the directors of the 1 st to 3 rd Defendants as of 23 July 2021.

Cited by 3 cases

Case No.HCA 1655/2008[2024] HKCFI 1019
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Apr 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1655/2008

[2024] HKCFI 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1655 OF 2008

____________________

BETWEEN

  PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LIMITED Plaintiff
  (太平洋鄧祿普製衣有限公司)  
  and  
  FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LIMITED 1st Defendant
  GAIN-PLUS HOLDINGS LIMITED 2nd Defendant
  CHALLENGE GLOBAL LIMITED 3rd Defendant
  KYLIN PROSPER LIMITED 4th Defendant

____________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 10 April 2024
Date of Decision: 10 April 2024

________________

DECISION

________________

1.Mr Chang SC has fairly accepted that the only link between Chan and Lee with the alleged contemptuous action is their directorship of the 1st to 3rd Defendants. There is no evidence, or any basis for the Applicant to assert presently, that Chan and Lee indeed remained the directors of the 1st to 3rd Defendants as of 23 July 2021.

2.The situation is highly unsatisfactory in light of :

(1)  This Court’s directions for a hearing of this leave application with the preparation of various documents to identify the alleged act of contempt on the part of Chan and Lee;

(2)  The said directions were given as long ago as 16 December 2022;

(3)  This is plainly a serious matter which may lead to the imprisonment of Chan and Lee;

(4)  Given the lack of information whether Chan and Lee remained directors of the 1st to 3rd Defendants at the material time, an adjournment of this application may be fruitless.

3.In these circumstances, I decline the Applicant’s application to adjourn this hearing. The leave application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

  ( Anthony Chan )
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Jonathan Chang SC and Mr John Chan, instructed by Cheung & Yip, for the Applicant