Tsang Wai Lun v. 9000 Ltd

HCMP 549/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 549 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.In my Decision dated 21 April 2026, I made an Order nisi for costs to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

2.By a letter dated 11 May 2026 signed in the name of “TSANG WAI Loy Kiu”, someone purporting to be the sole director of the Defendant wrote to court to “request[] an extension of time of 21 days for the purpose of an application to vary the Costs Order, or such further time as the Court considers appropriate, to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to attempt to resolve the matter without further litigation.”

3.A person named Tsang Wai Loy Kiu was mentioned in some places in the papers in this case.  She is the mother of the Mr Tsang and Ms Wan.  But there has been no mention of her involvement in the dispute and no explanation, even in the letter, of why she may be taking over from Ms Wan as director of the Defendant.

4.Moreover, the Defendant has not sought nor obtained leave for a director, whether Ms Wan or any person named “Tsang Wai Loy Kiu”, to represent it in these proceedings.

5.The letter shall not be taken into account.  In any event, the reasons given therein are woefully insufficient.  The request for extension of time would have been declined.

6.By Summons dated 12 May 2026, the Plaintiff applies to vary my order nisi to provide for summary assessment.

7.The application is reasonable.  This dispute has dragged on for too long.  Ms Wan has shown, time and again, that she would go to great lengths to delay matters.

8.I have perused the Plaintiff’s statement of costs dated 12 May 2026 and its submissions dated the same.  I summarily assess the costs to be HK$1,400,000.

9.Before this decision could be drawn up and issued, by a letter dated 26 May 2026, M.C.A. Lai Solicitors LLP (“Messrs Lai”)  wrote to court purporting to act for the Defendant to apply for the transcript of the hearing.  The letter is irregular not least because Messrs Lai had not yet filed any Notice to Act.  In any event, my earlier Decision has made clear the reasons for my determination.  There is no need for a transcript. The purported application is declined.

10.By letter dated 28 May 2026, Messrs Lai again wrote to court to purport that the Defendant wishes to file affirmation in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Summons.  This letter is also irregular not least because Messrs Lai had not yet filed any Notice to Act.

11.Messrs Lai filed a Notice to Act on 29 May 2026.

12.There are obviously grave doubts about who are purporting to give instructions to Messrs Lai in the name of the Defendant, and whether Messrs Lai can properly rely on such instructions.

13.One must also bear in mind that, by my earlier Decision, I have ordered that the Plaintiff be registered as a shareholder of the Defendant.

14.It is regrettable that the present decision was not drawn up and issued before the latest stunt in the name of the Defendant.  I was inclined to ignore the stunt, not least since the purported applications were made by Messrs Lai at a time when there was no proper notice of their representation of the Defendant.

15.On reflection, however, I do not want to give whoever is/are behind the stunt further excuses to cause delays.  I have therefore decided to deal with the matter as follows:

(a)  I do summarily assess the costs to be HK$1,400,000 and make an Order nisi to that effect.

(b)  The above order will become absolute within 14 days, absent (purported)  application by the Defendant to vary it.

(c)  If the Defendant make such or any other purported application, the matter shall be restored for hearing before me.

(d)  The first topic to be addressed at that hearing will be whether the Defendant has registered the Plaintiff as shareholder – and, if not, who has/have been or is/are resisting and on what basis.

(e)  The second topic will be who has/have been and is/are giving instructions to Messrs Lai in the name of the Defendant (the “Persons Behind”), and Messrs Lai’s basis for accepting such instructions as properly on behalf of the Defendant.

(f)  The third topic will be whether and how such Persons Behind may be joined for purposes of bearing past, present, and future costs.

(g)  The fourth topic will be any application to vary my costs order nisi.  As is usual for argument about costs, it will be done by way of submissions, without need for affidavit evidence.  I intend to determine any application to vary my costs order on the day of the hearing.

(h)  If there are other matters arising, they may be addressed at the hearing.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, solicitors for the Plaintiff

M.C.A. Lai Solicitors LLP, solicitors for the Defendant