Leung Yuet Keung v. Harbour Front Ltd and Another

HCMP 1471/2019

[2026] HKCFI 5689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1471 OF 2019

________________

________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________________

1.I delivered my Judgment in the Petitioner’s favour in the present unfair prejudice proceedings in June 2024[1] (“Judgment”) and delivered a Decision in March 2025[2] (“March 2025 Decision”) determining the procedure for the valuation of the Petitioner’s shares, which I ordered were to be purchased by the 1^st Respondent.  That valuation process was completed, and the price of the shares was determined. Subsequently, the 1^st Respondent issued applications which would have the substantive effect of reopening the valuation process. Initially, this took the form of a request by the 1^st Respondent to put questions to the valuer. I dismissed that application on 3 July 2026[3].  On 24 July 2026, I made an order (“July Order”) that the 1^st Respondent purchase the Petitioner’s shares in the 2^nd Respondent for a net consideration of HK$294,959,218.00, which was to be paid on or before 18 September 2026.  On 28 August 2026 the 1^st Respondent issued a summons seeking to vary the July Order (“Variation Summons”).  That application primarily concerns the timing of the payment of the consideration and that is the summons before me today.  The 1^st Respondent has also issued a summons on 14 August 2026 seeking leave to appeal the July Order (“Leave to Appeal Summons”).  That application is fixed to take place on 28 October 2026.  The parties agree that the 1^st Respondent’s Variation Summons should be heard with the Leave to Appeal Summons.  The 1^st Respondent also seeks an extension of an interim stay of compliance with the July Order until the determination of the Leave to Appeal Summons.  The interim stay I granted on 3 September 2026 was set to expire at the hearing on 5 October 2026.

2.My Judgment on liability was appealed, and the appeal took place on 8 January 2025.  My March 2025 Decision was also appealed, and the appeal took place on 12 March 2026.  Neither judgment has been delivered at the time of writing.

3.I granted a further interim stay of the July Order until determination of the Leave to Appeal Summons, which shall be heard on 28 October 2026.

4.I made the following orders:

(1)  The Variation Summons be adjourned to 28 October 2026 and be heard together with the summonses dated 17 July 2026, 31 July 2026, and 14 August 2026, with 1 day reserved.

(2)  The Petitioner has leave to file evidence in reply to the 5^th and 6^th affirmations of Leung Chi Yin Gillian by 4:30pm on 13 October 2026.

(3)  The 1^st Respondent has leave to file evidence in reply to such evidence as the Petitioner may file only by 4:30pm on 16 October 2026.

(4)  The 1^st Respondent shall file and serve digital hearing bundles on 16 October 2026, which shall comply with the attached direction.

(5)  The 1^st Respondent shall file and serve one consolidated skeleton argument dealing with all four summonses and authorities by noon on 20 October 2026, which shall comply with the attached direction.

(6)  The Petitioner shall file and serve its consolidated skeleton argument and authorities by 4:30pm on 23 October 2026, which shall comply with the attached direction.

(7)  Each party’s consolidated skeleton argument shall not exceed 12 pages, point size 14, 1.5 lines spacing.  No further skeleton argument, authorities, or written material of any kind should be filed without the leave of the court.

(8)  The interim stay of the order dated 24 July 2026 shall continue pending determination of the 1^st Respondent’s summons dated 14 August 2026, on 28 October 2026.

(9)  The costs of the hearing on 5 October 2026 be reserved and determined following the hearing on 28 October 2026.

Ms Frances Lok SC and Mr Kwan Ping Kan, instructed by Ho & Ip, for the Petitioner

Mr Clifford Smith SC and Ms Sabrina Ho, instructed by Kyms Law Office, for the 1^st Respondent