Perennial Investments (H.K.) Ltd. v. Union Bridge Investment Ltd. and Others

HCA010119/1999

HCA 10119/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 10119 OF 1999

______________

______________

Coram : Deputy Judge W. Wong in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 30 July 1999

Date of Ruling : 30 July 1999

____________

R U L I N G

____________

1. This is an inter parte summons taken out by the Plaintiff asking for certain mandatory order and injunction in respect of the affairs of the 2nd Defendant.

2. The 41 pages of affidavit in support consisting of 96 paragraphs and its exhibits together with the file was passed on to me at 3:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

3. The affidavit sets out circumstances leading to the resignation of two of the 2nd Defendant's directors who had controlling interest in order to have two corporate directors in their place and then the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants alleged certain irregularities in their appointments and removed them. Hence the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants are in virtue control of the 2nd Defendant. There is also allegation of irregular practices by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants in the affairs of the 2nd Defendant.

4. The parties had agreed to the following directions: -

1) 21 days for the Defendants to file affidavit in opposition of the summons.

2) 21 days for the Plaintiff to reply (if any) to the Defendants affidavits.

3) Summons adjourned to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsels' diary.

4) Liberty to apply within 48 hours notice.

5) Estimated time 2 days.

6) Costs in the cause.

5. Since the whole proceedings concerned the affairs of the 2nd Defendant, it would not be appropriate for the 2nd Defendant to be represented to participate in the proceedings. Hence I amended the order to exclude the 2nd Defendant from filing any affidavit and ordered that the 2nd Defendant should not take an active part in the proceedings.

6. Mr P H Wong of counsel for the 2nd Defendant objected. He started by saying that if it was not the intention of the Plaintiff that 2nd Defendant should take part then the Plaintiff should not have been named as a party. With greatest respect if the result of the litigation imposes an order affecting the 2nd Defendant, how possibly can the order be enforced upon an entity which is not a party to the proceeding. He then went on to say it should not be named as the 2nd Defendant. I am at a loss as to what difference does it make whether it be the 1st, 2nd or the last Defendant.

7. I then asked Mr Wong as to whether there are any issues which needed the active participation of the 2nd Defendant. His reply was simply that there may be some and said that he was not prepared as this matter was not raised by the Plaintiff.

8. I deprecate counsel coming to court without knowing what the case is about. He is not doing justice to his client. Not only that he was not able to assist the court, he had been obstinate in saying that there may be issues but he could not tell what are the issues, obviously because he has not even read the affidavit which has been filed.

9. He has asked me to make a ruling so that he can appeal. I have already made the ruling and this my reason for the ruling.

Representation:

Miss O Wong of Szeto & Yeung for the Plaintiff.

Union Bridge Investment Ltd., in person. The 1st Defendant represented by Miss Cheng Pui Ping.

Mr Wong P H instructed by Victor Chu & Co. for the 2nd Defendant.

The 3rd Defendant Cheng Pui Ping, in person.

The 4th Defendant Lo Ka Tong, in person.

The 5th Defendant Ho Wing Kan, in person.