中國遠洋運輸(集團)總公司 對 顧馥山
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1861/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 February 2013.
1. This is an application by way of an Originating Summons issued on 1 September 2012 in which the plaintiff seeks a vesting order based on section 52 of the Trustee Ordinance , Cap 29 (“Ordinance”) in respect of 11,000 deferred shares in Ocean Tramping Company, Ltd registered in the name of the defendant (“Shares”) which are held by him as trustee for the plaintiff pursuant to a Declaration of Trust dated 30 October 1990.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMP1861/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1861 OF 2012 --------------------------
---------------------- D E C I S I O N ---------------------- 1.This is an application by way of an Originating Summons issued on 1 September 2012 in which the plaintiff seeks a vesting order based on section 52 of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29 (“Ordinance”) in respect of 11,000 deferred shares in Ocean Tramping Company, Ltd registered in the name of the defendant (“Shares”) which are held by him as trustee for the plaintiff pursuant to a Declaration of Trust dated 30 October 1990. 2.I am satisfied on the evidence that the Shares are held by the defendant as a trustee for the plaintiff. Further, a written request was made to the defendant by the plaintiff via its solicitors on 2 April 2012 for the transfer of the Shares. No response to the request has been received despite the fact that it was sent to the two addresses (“Addresses”) of the defendant known to the plaintiff. 3.As regards the service of these proceedings, the evidence is clear that various attempts have been made to serve the same on the defendant at the Addresses. In addition, pursuant to a Substituted Service Order, an advertisement in respect of these proceedings was placed in a popular Chinese newspaper dated 8 January 2013. 4.Such efforts have not produced any response from the defendant. I am satisfied that the defendant cannot be found and it is appropriate to exercise my power under section 58 of the Ordinance to deal with these matters in the absence of the defendant. 5.I agree with the plaintiff that a proper case has been made out pursuant to section 52(1)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Ordinance. 6.In the premises, I grant the following order in favour of the plaintiff:
Mr Shum Cheuk Pan, of Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo, for the plaintiff The defendant was not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case