Chui Pui Kun v. Fook Lam Moon Restaurant Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 270/2010 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 January 2011.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCMP 270/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date03 Jan 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 270/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 270 OF 2010

____________

  IN THE MATTER of FOOK LAM MOON RESTAURANT LIMITED
(福臨門酒家有限公司)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of Order 102, Rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court

____________

BETWEEN

  CHUI PUI KUN
 (徐沛鈞)
Applicant
and
  FOOK LAM MOON RESTAURANT LIMITED
(福臨門酒家有限公司)
1st Respondent
  CHUI WAI KWAN
(徐維均)
2nd Respondent
  CHUI TAK YIU
 (also known as “DANIEL CHUI)”
(徐德耀)
3rd Respondent
  TSUI YAU HING
 (徐有興)
4th Respondent
  HUI JIA YIN, JANET
(許嘉茵)
5th Respondent

____________

HCMP 271/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 271 OF 2010

____________

  IN THE MATTER of FOOK LAM MOON (KOWLOON) RESTAURANT LIMITED
(福臨門(九龍)酒家有限公司)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of Order 102, Rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court

____________

BETWEEN

  CHUI PUI KUN (徐沛鈞) 1st Applicant
  COQUEEN COMPANY LIMITED
(昶華有限公司)
2nd Applicant
and
  FOOK LAM MOON (KOWLOON) RESTAURANT LIMITED
(福臨門(九龍)酒家有限公司)
1st Respondent
  CHUI WAI KWAN (徐維均) 2nd Respondent
  CHUI TAK YIU
(also known as “DANIEL CHUI)”
(徐德耀)
3rd Respondent
  CHUI WAI KWAN INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED
 (徐維均投資有限公司)
4th Respondent
  FULLBOND PROPERTIES LTD. 5th Respondent

____________

(Heard Together)

Before: Mr Recorder A Chow, SC in Court

Dates of Hearing: 29 – 30 November 2010

Date of Judgment: 3 January 2011

______________

CORRIGENDUM

______________

Please note the following corrigendum in the Judgment of the above case handed down by Mr. Recorder Chow, SC on 3 January 2011 : -

Page 12

Line L at paragraph 29 should read “I do not think it is necessary to burden this judgment …”

Page 19

Line M at paragraph 46 should read “important to bear in mind that the directors’ common law right to have access to company documents and …”

Page 26

Line E at paragraph 62 should read “Similarly, in HCMP 271/2010, I would grant an order that the 1st Respondent do provide …”

Dated the 20th day of January 2011

(ETHEL CHAN)(MISS)
CLERK TO MR. RECORDER A. CHOW, SC