Kwong Ian (Hong Kong) Construction and Real Estate Development Co Ltd v. Glorious Sun (Highway Development Ltd) and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 260/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 August 2006.
1. The 10th defendant has made an application for part of the name of the plaintiff to be struck out. The gravamen of the complaint is the presence of the words “and on behalf of Lucky Money Limited” as part of the description of the plaintiff. The 10th defendant complained that it could not appear both as the plaintiff and as a defendant, hence the application for striking out those words. If these words are struck out, the action will continue as a derivative action and Lucky Money Limited
|
HCA 260/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 260 OF 2006 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ HCA 261/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 261 OF 2006 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ HCA 262/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 262 OF 2006 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ （Heard Together) Before: Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 9 August 2006 Date of Decision: 9 August 2006 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.The 10th defendant has made an application for part of the name of the plaintiff to be struck out. The gravamen of the complaint is the presence of the words “and on behalf of Lucky Money Limited” as part of the description of the plaintiff. The 10th defendant complained that it could not appear both as the plaintiff and as a defendant, hence the application for striking out those words. If these words are struck out, the action will continue as a derivative action and Lucky Money Limited will remain as the 10th defendant. I think there is a lot of good sense in this application and it does not affect the merits of the action. 2.Mr Pow suggested that I should modify the description of the plaintiff to “and on behalf of (the other shareholders of) Lucky Money Limited (but to the exclusion of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defendants)” by inserting the words in parenthesis. This formula in reality means nothing, because apart from Kwong Ian (Hong Kong) Construction and Real Estate Development Company Limited, the only other shareholders of Lucky Money Limited are the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defendants. Since there is no shareholder who is not represented as a party in this action, I do not think I should accept Mr Pow’s suggestion and adopt the lengthy formula, which amounts to nothing. 3.I therefore allow the 10th defendant’s application for striking out the words “and on behalf of Lucky Money Limited” from the title of the plaintiff. I also order costs of the application be paid by Kwong Ian to the 10th defendant. (Submission re costs) 4.The costs order is not against the plaintiff but Kwong Ian (Hong Kong) Construction and Real Estate Development Company Limited as the application was made by the 10th defendant to strike out its name from the plaintiff and Kwong Ian resisted it but failed. The costs ordered in favour of Lucky Money shall be taxed and paid forthwith. 5.I make the same orders for HCA261 and HCA262 of 2006.
Mr Jason Pow, SC and Mr Victor Dawes, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y T Ho & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr Warren Chan, SC and Mr John Shek, instructed by Messrs David Y Y Fung & Co., for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Mr Alan Leong SC and Mr Alfred Liang, instructed by Messrs Chan & Yau, for the 4th - 9th Defendants. Mr Johnny Mok, SC, instructed by Messrs W K To & Co., for the 10th Defendant. |
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 260/2006