Grand Billion Industries Ltd v. Yeung Man Ho and Another
|
HCMP 583/2026 [2026] HKCFI 5858 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 583 OF 2026 _______________________
__________________________
_______________________
_______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1.By originating summons filed on 14 April 2026 (“OS”) by Grand Billion Industries Ltd (the “Company”) against Yeung Man Ho (“D1”) and the Registrar of Companies (“D2” or the “Registrar”), the Company applied, inter alia, for
2.On 7 May 2026, D1 filed a summons to strike out the OS for want of authority (the “Summons”). 3.By a consent order dated 18 May 2026, the Summons and the OS which have identical underlying issues are heard together. Factual background 4.The Company was incorporated in Hong Kong on 30 May 1995 as a private company limited by shares. 5.Immediately before the registration of the Impugned Documents, the Company’s Annual Return (Form NAR 1) made up to 30 May 2025 shows Yeung Po Ping (“YPP”) and Li Mei Ying (“LMY”) as the directors (both appointed on 17 July 1995) and YPP as the company secretary. YPP held 2,999,900 ordinary shares and LMY held the remaining 100 ordinary shares. 6.The Impugned Documents registered on 16 September 2025 comprise:
7.The records of the register of members of the Company produced by the Registrar show that the Company was incorporated in Hong Kong on 30 May 1995 with 2 issued shares. On 18 July 1995, YPP and LMY each acquired one of its two issued shares[3]. 8.As of 1 April 1996, YPP, LMY and one Hung Hiu Ling (“HHL”) were registered as members, respectively holding 5000 shares, 100 shares and 4900 shares of the Company. 9.HHL ceased to be a member on 4 April 2001 when Cheung Koon Ping (“CKP”) and Cheung Fong Yan (“CFY”) (collectively, the “Cheungs”) respectively acquired 2989 and 1911 of HHL’s 4900 shares. The Cheungs ceased to be members on 5 June 2004 due to ill health and old age. YPP acquired their shares for $8 million paid in cash and by cheque[4]. 10.The Company is a holding company for 2 limited companies incorporated in the PRC, namely 均億五金製品（東莞）有限公司 (“Wujin Co”) established in the 1990s and 均億精密部件（東莞）有限公司 (“Jingmi Co”) established in 2005 (respectively, “Wujin” and “Jingmi”). Each of the companies owned a factory in the PRC and operated the same type of business of hardware products manufacturing. Jingmi was established to cater for a separate client base. 11.D1 is YPP’s son from his marriage to LMY. 12.YPP has a second family with Madam Chen Xingxing (“Madam Chen”) (employed by the Company between 1997 and 2013) who bore him 4 children, the eldest of whom is a daughter, Chan Suet Yi (“CSY”) born in 2002. CSY has 3 younger siblings who (in June 2026) were aged 21, 19 and 14. 13.After graduating from university in Australia in 2013, D1 returned to Hong Kong and has been assisting YPP in managing Wujin and in 2018 was appointed its legal representative. 14.When CSY graduated from university in Australia in 2024, she also returned to Hong Kong and has been assisting YPP in managing Jingmi. 15.There is a board resolution dated 16 September 2025 underpinning the matters recorded in the Impugned ND2A, namely, the resignation of both YPP and LMY as directors, the appointment of D1 as director, the resignation of YPP as company secretary, the appointment of CHYV as company secretary, and approval of the transfer of all of YPP’s shares and LMY’s shares in the Company to D1 (“the Board Resolution”). 16.For the “Share Transfer”, there are: (i) bought and sold notes for the transfer of YPP and LMY’s respective shares; (ii) instruments of transfer for those shares; (iii) YPP’s notices of resignation as director and company secretary (“Resignation Notices”) and (iv) the Board Resolution (collectively, the “Share Transfer Documents[5]”). 17.YPP denies that he ever agreed to resign as director or to transfer all his shares to D1. He did not even know about the Impugned Documents until late October 2023[6]. His case is that even if the signatures are genuine, they were fraudulently obtained by D1. 18.YPP commenced an action on 11 August 2026 (HCA 1402/2026) against D1 for a declaration that the Share Transfer Documents are null and void. Applicable principles 19.An objection that an action in the name of the company is not properly constituted because it is not authorised by the company cannot be raised by way of defence, but must be raised at the outset by an application to have the name of the company struck out as plaintiff and dealt with at the outset. Once it is clear that the action was improperly constituted it could not be allowed to proceed: see Airways Limited v Bowen and another [1985] BCLC 355 at 359b and 360a and Kammy Town Limited v Super Glory Corporation Limited, unrep., HCA 3524/2003, 14 January 2005 where those principles are applied. 20.Section 42 of the CO (“section 42”), in pertinent part, provides as follows:
21.In Re China Nice Education Research Publishing Investment and Management Co Ltd [2016] 3 HKLRD 525, Godfrey Lam J (as he then was) considered the scope of the Court’s power to order removal of information from the CR. He held that section 42(4) restricts the power to order removal and to make rectification the ordinary remedy where the situation referred to in subsection (1) arises, stating (at §§17-18) that:
22.As to the Court’s jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, in Convoy Global Holdings Limited v Kwok Hiu Kwan [2020] 4 HKLRD 222 at §§ 52-53, Coleman J (as he then was) agreed with the summary stated by DHCJ To in Koo Ming Kown v Rev Mr Mok Kong Ting [2018] HKCFI 967 at §§15-18:
23.For fraudulent misrepresentation, in Ming Shiu Chung & Ors v Ming Shiu Sum & Ors (2006) 9 HKCFAR 334 the Court of Final Appeal held (at §84) that a person is held to the documents he has chosen to sign unless there is shown to be a recognised legal basis for concluding that his apparent consent has been in some way vitiated or that reliance on that document by some other person falls into some category of unconscionable conduct justifying relief in equity. The CFA considered (at §87) that the vitiated factors in common law include fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, known as fact, duress, undue influence and lack of mental capacity. 24.The CA in Haifa International Finance Co Ltd v Concord Strategic Investments Limited [2009] 4 HKLRD 29 stated the elements of fraud or deceit[7]:
The Summons 25.Mr Brian Tsui, counsel for D1 submitted that, procedurally, the Summons has to be dealt with first. The issue is whether YPP who is suing in the name of the Company could prove that he remains the shareholder and director of the Company. 26.D1 relies on the Board Resolution and the Share Transfer Documents and contends that as shown in the register of members, he has been the sole shareholder of the Company since 16 September 2025 and its sole director. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the share register is proof of any matters that are required or authorised by the CO[8] to be inserted in it. 27.While noting that YPP is seeking a declaration in HCA 1402/2026 that the Share Transfer Documents are null and void, that remedy is personal to YPP. D1 submits that without a declaration that the Share Transfer Documents are null and void, YPP cannot establish himself as the shareholder and director of the Company. 28.D1 relies on Hang Heung Cake Shop Company Limited v Chan Hung Kit [2024] HKCFI 1982 said to be a similar case where a party took out a writ action challenging a sudden share transfer and the question for decision was whether the plaintiff’s board had any locus to commence the action. The defendant applied for a stay pending the final determination of consolidated actions (to determine who is the true shareholder and director) or, alternatively, that the action be struck out for want of authority to sue on the part of the plaintiff. 29.D1 relies on the observations of Lok J (at §25) that the result of the consolidated actions is a future possible event which is not relevant to the present authority to sue. The judge refused a stay, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the existence of a pending action would be sufficient to prevent the current board from continuing the business of the company. 30.Mr Herman Ho, counsel for the Company, agrees that the Summons be dealt with first but takes issue with the proposition that a court declaration (that the underlying documents are null and void) is required before the statutory power to remove the Impugned Documents could be exercised. He submits that if a document is void, it is void ab initio without the need for any court declaration and there is no legal authority that suggests that a court declaration is a prerequisite to invalidating the Impugned Documents. 31.The Company cited 2 authorities in support. In Re Cheer Holdings Limited [2018] HKCFI 404, the applicants applied for and obtained an order that statutory forms filed by the respondent showing that he was appointed as sole director be removed from the CR on the basis that the appointment was made as a result of a meeting that was invalidly convened. The court made the removal order pursuant to section 42 on the basis of the evidence filed, concluding that the meeting was not validly convened. Notably, it did not make a declaration that the board meeting was invalid before exercising its removal powers under section 42. Re Cheer Holdings thus undermines D1’s submission that a declaration is required before the section 42 powers could be exercised. 32.In Re Global Resources Investment Technologies Limited [2026] HKCFI 357, the company passed a resolution to remove the 1st defendant as director with immediate effect. The 1st defendant disputed his removal and sought to challenge the underlying beneficial ownership of the company. That required the 1st defendant to adduce cogent evidence to substantiate his allegations. While, in that case, the 1st defendant failed to discharge the evidential burden on him, it shows that sufficiently cogent evidence could displace the status quo shown in documents registered in the CR. 33.Mr Ho submits that it is open to the Court to make a factual finding on the legal effect of the underlying documents, namely, YPP’s resignation from his directorship and D1’s appointment as director, citing Kammy Town where, at §§15-16, A Cheung J (as he then was) held as follows:
34.The Company’s stance is that based on the available evidence, the Court is entitled to make a factual finding on whether the documents YPP signed (the “underlying documents”) are null and void unless the affidavit evidence, taking it to its highest, does not support the Company’s case or is utterly unbelievable. 35.As regards D1’s reliance on Hang Heung, the Company invited attention to the fact that Hang Heung concerns trademark infringement[9] rather than a dispute as to who has control of the Company. It is not a case about section 42. In Hang Heung, the defendant applied for a stay pending the final determination of consolidated actions to determine who is the true shareholder and director. In refusing a stay, Lok J observed that the issues in the consolidated actions were different and it would be unjust to stay to hinder the resolution of the trademark dispute before the court. 36.The present case does not require a stay pending the determination of the HCA 1402 because the Company relies on the affirmation evidence of the underlying documents that is before the Court. The issue of authority and the underlying substantive dispute turn on the same factual issue. Discussion 37.Having regard to the Company’ s authorities referred to above, and in the absence of any authority to the contrary, I agree that section 42 powers are exercisable on the basis of evidence before the Court without the Company first obtaining a declaration that the Share Transfer (the “Share Transfer”) is void provided the evidence adduced is sufficiently cogent to displace what is recorded in documents registered at the CR. 38.I now turn to consider the evidence. D1 and YPP have given conflicting evidence on many matters. In applying the approach set out in Kammy Town, for present purposes, I propose to focus on the more salient matters. (a) YPP’s state of health and the execution of the Share Transfer Documents 39.In his affirmation dated 7 May 2026 (“D1 1st”), D1 sets out the events that gave rise to the Share Transfer and the execution of the Share Transfer Documents. 40.D1’s account is that YPP’s hospitalisation in May 2024 for acute myocardial infarction requiring surgery caused YPP to consider his succession plan seriously. YPP and D1 spent considerable time discussing, considering and weighing different options and D1 spent every Tuesday to Friday in the factory, returning to Hong Kong for weekends. 41.“Eventually[10]”, YPP decided to transfer his shareholding in the Company to D1 and resign as a director and secretary of the Company. He wanted D1 to succeed him as the Company’s director. After the Share Transfer, D1 would cause Jingmi to be transferred to a member of the Chan’s family, with Wujin remaining under D1’s management. In the process, D1 and YPP had a discussion with LMY who agreed to transfer her shares to D1 and resign as director and secretary of the Company. 42.In May 2025, YPP was diagnosed to have developed tumours in his blood vessels requiring complicated surgery with attendant risks. Alarmed by his deteriorating health, YPP instructed D1 and a staff member of Wujin to prepare the necessary documents to effect the Share Transfer. 43.D1 engaged accounting firms to prepare the necessary documents. In around August and September 2025, YPP, LMY and D1 executed the Share Transfer Documents. Before they were signed, D1 explained to YPP the purpose and effect of each of the Share Transfer Documents. D1 then signed and caused the Impugned ND2A to be registered at the CR on 16 September 2025. 44.Apart from copies of the Share Transfer Documents, the Impugned ND2A, and the register of members as of 16 September 2025, D1 did not adduce any documentary evidence to corroborate his allegations, much less contemporaneous documentary evidence. 45.YPP’s hospitalisations in May 2024 and May 2025 are pivotal events to D1’s case. YPP has produced hospital records which do not support D1’s portrayal of the state of YPP’s health:
46.D1’s evidence concerning the execution of the Share Transfer Documents is remarkable for its vagueness and lack of specificity even as to the date on which they were signed and whether YPP and LMY signed them on the same occasion. 47.YPP remembers that on a Friday afternoon in late August 2025 or early September 2025, D1 brought various English documents into his office at Wujin for YPP’s signature. D1 was impatient and rushed YPP into signing documents said to be the Company’s audit documents for the Hong Kong accountants by pointing to the locations where he needed to sign. YPP does not know English at all and signed the documents per D1’s instructions as he trusted his son. There was no explanation about any share transfer or resignation or changing of directorship. All told, D1 remained in YPP’s office for around 2 minutes and left in a hurry as he had to catch the High Speed Rail back to Hong Kong. (b) The underlying documents 48.There are altogether 9 documents that appear to bear YPP’ s signature. 5 of them form part of the Share Transfer Documents. The remaining 4 documents bearing YPP’s signature relate to the alteration of the Articles, namely, the Impugned Special Resolution, the Impugned NAA1 (each of which bears a CR stamp of 2 September 2025) and 2 certified true copies of the cover page of the Company’s Articles and Certificate of Incorporation bearing YPP’s signature with a date stamp of 1 September 2025, one of which also bears a CR stamp of 2 September 2025. 49.D1’s evidence in relation to the alteration of the Articles is limited to §20 of D1 1st which is in the following terms:
50.It sheds no light on when and in what circumstances YPP signed the 4 documents described above and which form part of the Impugned Documents. That D1 chose to gloss that over is telling. 51.Of the 9 documents that appear to bear YPP’s signature, the earliest ones show a date stamp of 1 September 2025. In the absence of any evidence that YPP’s signatures were appended on 2 different occasions, it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that they were all signed on the same occasion. Since 3 of the 9 documents bearing a date stamp of 1 September 2025 or so bear a CR stamp of 2 September 2025, they must have come into existence on or before 1 September 2025. 52.As 1 September 2025 is a Sunday, the likelihood is that they were signed on the preceding Friday, 29 August 2025. That would be consistent not only with D1’s evidence that he returns to Hong Kong to be with his family every weekend but also YPP’s evidence that he signed them on a Friday at the end of August/early September and that D1 left hurriedly to catch his train to Hong Kong. 53.While the Disputed ND2A is dated 16 September 2025, that does not preclude all 9 documents having been signed on the same occasion on an earlier date. 54.YPP’s evidence is that he only became aware of the Impugned Documents in late October 2025 in the following circumstances:
55.Alarmed by those events, YPP immediately instructed lawyers to conduct a company search which revealed the registration of the Impugned Documents at the CR, the implications of which were explained to him by his lawyers. YPP is adamant that he never agreed to resign or otherwise cease to be director or company secretary of the Company, that the board of directors also never agreed to appoint D1 as director or CHYV as company secretary. He has no recollection of signing the Impugned Special Resolution and denies its authenticity. He never agreed to change the Company’s Articles and challenges the authenticity of his signatures on the Impugned NAA1. 56.YPP’s account is supported by a screenshot of a mobile phone showing WeChat messages[14] against the background of a Business Letter[15] he had drafted on 22 October 2025 and sent to D1 relating to the transfer referred to in §54(i) above, the subject matter of the meeting held on 23 October 2025. 57.In the Business Letter, YPP named himself as “chair of directors” of the Company. D1 adopted an evasive attitude and refused to stamp the Business Letter without any explanation. D1 never addressed nor refuted that incident when he plainly had the opportunity to do so in D1 2nd. (c) YPP’s background and the founding of the Company 58.The following matters are based on YPP’s 1st affirmation dated 13 April 2026 (“YPP 1st”), his 2nd affirmation dated 15 June 2026 (“YPP 2nd”) and CKP Aff:
59.As regards the factual background stated in §58 above, D1 does not accept that YPP founded the Company and contends that YPP and LMY “took over the Company as equal shareholders in 1995[16]”, that LMY provided funding to YPP for the initial investment in 1995 and the share purchase from the Cheungs in 2004. 60.D1’s allegations are but bare allegations as he has not produced any supporting evidence to show LMY’s ability to provide funding for the initial investment. 61.YPP’s account is consistent with the CR records[17] that show his acquisition of a shelf company which also disproves the allegation that in 1995 what was required was an existing business as the Company was only incorporated on 30 May 1995 and the share acquisition took place less than 6 weeks later. (d) YPP’s knowledge of English 62.Given YPP’s age, education and work history described in §§58(i)-(iii) above, his evidence that he has no knowledge of the English language is entirely credible. 63.D1 suggests that YPP could appreciate the nature of the Share Transfer Documents because YPP attended a night school programme at Hong Kong Polytechnic, acquired the Cheungs’ shares in 2004 and has experience as company secretary since 1995. Further, D1 cites YPP’s experience of purchasing the Cheungs’ shares in 2004 and subsequently increasing the share capital and number of shares of the Company so as to dilute LMY’s shareholding as well as YPP’s experience as company secretary to support his case that YPP was able to understand the Share Transfer Documents. 64.YPP’s explanation that the night school programme was a 2-month programme of 2-hour sessions twice weekly about management in hardware products manufacturing and taught purely in Chinese is credible given the nature of the Company’s business and his educational background. As regards the acquisition of 49% of the shareholding from the Cheungs, it was handled by CF Chu & Co CPA as YPP has never understood English[18]. That firm also assisted YPP in handling the Company’s secretarial affairs[19]. 65.D1’s allegation of share dilution after the 2004 acquisition in 2004 is utterly unbelievable given the CR records described in §§7-9 above. (e) D1’s share transfer arrangement 66.D1’s version of the succession plan was for YPP to transfer his shares in the Company to D1 leaving D1 to transfer Jingmi to the Chan’s family. In response to YPP’s contention that such an arrangement was nonsensical as there would be no guarantee that D1 would transfer Jingmi to the Chan’s family, D1 offered the underlying “rationale” of the need to conceal YPP’s 2nd family from LMY because she was not aware of YPP’s extra-marital affair. 67.But that problem could easily be resolved by asking LMY to resign as director and transfer her 100 shares to YPP or D1 after which LMY would not know about the subsequent steps. 68.In any event, it is not believable that LMY was not aware of Madam Chen’s relationship with YPP. There is ample evidence from YPP, Madam Chen, CSY and a staff member Chen Mingxiang to the effect that Madam Chen and her family resided for many years at the factory of Wujin, Madam Chen’s parents also resided at the Dalian factory at times. YPP’s extra-marital affairs and existence of the 2nd family was never a secret: everyone in the Dalian factory knew about it. 69.Madam Chen deposes[20] to having been invited to YPP’s family gatherings and YPP’s schoolmate gatherings in the capacity as a member of his family and has exhibited photographs taken in 2009-2011, 2013 and 2016 with some of YPP’s siblings, his mother and other relatives. Madam Chen also refers to a phone call she received in 2006 from LMY on one occasion when she and YPP were inspecting the Dalian factory. LMY chastised her for being a mistress. YPP corroborates that incident[21]. 70.D1 also alleges that YPP only disclosed his 2nd family to D1 during YPP’s hospitalisation in May 2024. Quite apart from what is set out in §§68-69 above, exhibited to CSY’s affirmation dated 24 August 2026 are two photographs taken by a staff member on 28 March 2024 at an exhibition where the Company maintained a booth. The photographs captured D1 (representing Wujin) and CSY (representing Jingmi) who were managing the booth in the same frame. This debunks D1’s assertion that he only came to know about the 2nd family in May 2024. (f) Unexplained features of the Share Transfer Documents 71.The Share Transfer Documents purport to show that YPP received a consideration of $2,999,900 for the transfer of his shares to D1. In fact, no consideration was paid. D1’s explanation is that it was drafted in accordance with the advice of the accountant. The notion that an accountant should give such advice when there is no commercial reason to do so is unbelievable. 72.As the Share Transfer Documents were professionally drawn[22], D1 must have been advised that the instrument of transfer which contains witness clauses required YPP’ s signature to be witnessed. D1 has not sought to explain why YPP’s signature was not witnessed despite the matter having been raised on 15 June 2026[23] when both of D1’s affirmations were filed after that date. (g) The transfer of Jingmi to CSY 73.D1 alleges[24] that shortly after completion of the Share Transfer and change in directorship, there were discussions with YPP and CSY involving PRC tax advisers on the detailed steps required to effect the transfer of Jingmi to CSY which was said not to be straightforward. Allegedly, there were disagreements between D1 and the Chan’s family as to the appropriate steps. 74.Despite the alleged involvement of PRC tax advisers and the alleged difficulties and disagreements, D1 has not come forward with even a single document in support of his allegations. It stretches one’s credulity to believe that all of this could have taken place orally. 75.D1 has exhibited WeChat messages with his accountant dated 10 October 2025. However, these do not evidence D1’s discussion with Chan’s family nor is it explained how the contents of those messages are follow-up questions relating to the transfer of Jingmi to Chan’s family. 76.It is also D1’s case that on 28 October 2025, YPP circulated 3 contractual documents[25] to D1 as YPP or CSY’s counter-proposal for the transfer of Jingmi to CSY. 77.In fact, YPP’s solicitors sent a pre-action letter to D1 on 28 October 2025 complaining about the Impugned Documents and that if the signatures thereon were YPP’s, they had been fraudulently obtained. It therefore defies common sense that on the very same day YPP would be making a counter-proposal for Jingmi’s transfer. Rather, the draft documents circulated were without prejudice settlement proposals from YPP to D1. Disposition 78.It is apparent from the matters considered in detail under headings (a) to (g) above that the contrast between the evidence adduced by D1 and the Company respectively could not be starker. The Company’s case is consistent, inherently probable and fully supported by contemporaneous evidence on key aspects whereas D1’s evidence is insubstantial, inherently improbable and on key aspects utterly unbelievable. 79.Based on the evidence before the Court, I have no difficulty in finding that when YPP signed the underlying documents, he was misled by D1 into thinking that they were audit documents for the Hong Kong accountants. YPP never intended to transfer ownership and control of the Company to D1. 80.This is an appropriate case for the Court to grant the declaration the Company seeks. 81.Since the Company seeks the removal of the Impugned Documents, section 42(4) requires the Court to consider whether their continuing presence on the Companies Register would cause material damage to the Company, and whether the Company’s interest in their removal outweighs the interest of other persons in their continuing appearance on the Register. 82.Accuracy of the information relating to the directors and shareholders of the Company is a matter of importance since third parties dealing with the Company may wish to ascertain the identity of those with whom they are dealing: see Re Oligo Asia Environmental Group Limited [2023] HKCFI 3080 at §41. 83.As the Impugned Documents are factually incorrect, null and void and filed without the Company’s authority, their continuing presence on the Register creates a real risk that persons dealing with the Company will be misled or be uncertain as to the ownership of the Company and the identity of the person(s) authorised to manage the Company and execute documents on its behalf. That may impede the Company’s operations as it may be required to deal with queries and explanations as to YPP’s authority causing delay, expense and uncertainty in his business dealings. 84.The Impugned Documents create a false public record that D1 is or was the Company’s sole director. There is a real risk that D1 may rely upon that false record to misrepresent to 3rd parties that D1 has authority to deal with the Company or its assets. 85.I am satisfied that the continuing presence of the wrong information on the CR will cause arterial damage to the Company. 86.In my view, the Company’s interest in removal clearly outweighs the interest of any other person in preserving the Impugned Documents on the Companies Register. Removal of the Impugned Documents will not prejudice D1 as he has no legitimate interest in maintaining and preserving wrong information on the Companies Register: see Re Oligo Asia at §43. 87.Accordingly, I make the following orders:
88.I further direct that (i) D1 do lodge his list of objections (limited to 3 pages) to the Company’s statement of costs filed with its submissions within 14 days of this Decision; and (ii) the Company do lodge its reply (limited to 2 pages) within 7 days thereafter. 89.The parties are directed to submit an agreed draft order for approval within fourteen days of this Decision.
Mr Herman Ho, instructed by Messrs. Chan & Associates, for the Plaintiff Mr Brian Tsui, instructed by Messrs. Vremeli Chan & Co., for the 1st Defendant Attendance of the Registrar of Companies was excused [1] I take this to be a reference to the Companies Registry. [2] YPP and LMY. [3] Annual Return of the Company dated 30 May 1996. [4] See the affirmation of Cheung Koon Ping (“CKP”) dated 24 August 2026 ("CKP Aff") at §§7-9. [5] Altogether 8 documents are exhibited of which 5 concern YPP, the remaining 3 concern LMY. [6] See §§54-55 below. [7] Adopting the exposition in Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (17th ed., 2006) at p. 472 para 11-3. [8] Section 635. [9] The defendant's main argument is that by reason of the defendant’s complaints in the consolidated actions, the plaintiff does not have authority to sue. In that case, the defendant had nothing to disprove the authority of the plaintiff and required a stay pending the outcome of the consolidated actions but in the present case there is available evidence for the issue to be determined. [10] D1 did not specify a date or provide a timeframe. It is entirely unclear how YPP's decision was communicated to D1. [11] His condition fell within Killip Class I, the mildest category of heart problems: YPP 2nd, §10 and the hospital records YPP exhibited. [12] At his follow-up visit a year after his 2024 hospitalisation in China, YPP was mis-diagnosed as having tumours in his blood vessels. [13] YPP's evidence is that Wujin did not want to handle this client: YPP 2nd at §22. [14] Tab 8 of YPP-2. [15] Tab 7 of YPP-2. [16] D1 1st at §4. [17] See §7 above. [18] CKP Aff at §8 where CKP stated that YPP could not have read the English share transfer documents his own. [19] YPP 4th at §16. [20] Madam Chen’s affirmation 24 August 2026 at §§ 5-6 and 8. [21] YPP 4th at §6. [22] See §43 above. [23] See YPP 2nd at §16.2. [24] D1 1st at §32. [25] See YMH-13. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment