Tyg Capital Fund (in Liquidation) v. Hilda Hor Yee Chan and Others

Case No.HCMP 2123/2014
Court
High Court CFI
Date28 Aug 2014
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCMP 2123/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2123OF 2014

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1585 of 2014)

________________________

BETWEEN TYG CAPITAL FUND
(IN LIQUIDATION)
Plaintiff
AND
HILDA HOR YEE CHAN 1st Defendant
DAREN KA YIP CHAN 2nd Defendant
TYG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED 3rd Defendant
TYG MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED 4th Defendant
TYG ADVISORS LIMITED 5th Defendant
TYG CPAITAL MANAGEMENT (INT’L) LIMITED 6th Defendant

________________________

Before : Hon Lam VP and Kwan JA

Date of Judgment : 28 August 2014

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.We refuse to grant leave to appeal. We agree with Deputy Judge Ng that the ex parte order on Shareholder Restraint should be discharged on the basis she canvassed in her judgment. We also do not see any valid basis for this court to intervene in her exercise of discretion in not re-granting the same.

2.On the submissions placed before us, it seems that the whole application hinges on one point: whether the Shareholder Restraint can be justified as being ancillary to the Mareva injunctions. Though we can see that there may be scope for arguing that the court may grant such kind of relief in an extreme case, on the facts here, in light of the undertakings given by the Defendants and the intended appointment of two professional men as independent directors to replace the existing directors and with available redress in terms of applications being made to the Cayman Islands court if necessary (and 5 days' notice rule is still in place at the moment), the need for such draconian relief is not reasonably arguable.  Once appointed, the new independent directors would owe fiduciary duties to the Fund and there is no reason to assume that they would not observe such duties.

3.We are of the view that the application for leave is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the Rules of High Court that no party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

4.We also order the Plaintiff to pay the costs of this leave application to the Defendants, such costs shall be taxed if not agreed.

(M H Lam)
Vice President
(Susan Kwan)
Justice of Appeal

Written submissions byMr C W Ling, instructed by Reed Smith Richards Butler, for the plaintiff

Written submissions by Mr William Wong SC, instructed by Bobby Tse & Co, for the 1st defendant

Written submissions by Mr Douglas Lam and Ms Sabrina Ho, instructed Lee Chan Cheng, for the 2nd defendant

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2123/2014