Leung Chi Tung v. Au Yeung Fan and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 504/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 30 September 2011.
1. The order that I made on 14 October 2010 for the appointment of Sum, Arthur & Co. specifically refers to that firm being appointed at the joint valuer of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent. This was because that was what was asked for in the Petitioner’s summons of 1 September 2010.
|
HCCW504/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO. 504 OF 2005 ____________________
----------------------- BETWEEN
Before: Hon Harris J in Court Date of Hearing: 30 September 2011 Date of Judgment: 30 September 2011 ________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ 1.The order that I made on 14 October 2010 for the appointment of Sum, Arthur & Co. specifically refers to that firm being appointed at the joint valuer of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent. This was because that was what was asked for in the Petitioner’s summons of 1 September 2010. 2.The 2nd Respondent had not attended court on 14 October 2010 and it appears that that hearing proceeded on the basis that he was absent, although Mr Chan suggested to me today that his solicitors, which were the same as the 1st Respondent’s solicitors, were still on the record. 3.What appears to be sought today by the Petitioner is an order which states clearly what the value of the Petitioner’s shares are and also an order that money held by the Petitioner’s solicitors as stakeholders can be released to the Petitioner. 4.I do not have any difficulty making an order dealing with the valuation of the shares as between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, but it seems to me that having quite specifically restricted what was sought on 14 October to the 1st Respondent, it would be inappropriate for me to now produce an order which referred to both Respondents. The Petitioner will have to consider what, if anything, is appropriate for them to do in respect of the 2nd Respondent. It does not, however, seem to me that this prevents me from making an order that the Petitioner’s solicitors may release the money they hold as stakeholder to their client. 5.I will, therefore, make the following order.:
(Submissions by counsel on interest)
Mr Maurice J Chan, instructed by Messrs Chak & Associates, for the Petitioner Messrs Ivan Tang & Co., for the 1st Respondent, absent 2nd Respondent, in person, present | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 504/2005