LEUNG TAT KIN, ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWOK HO

HCMP 939/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 939 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is an application by the 1st applicant and the 2nd applicant for removal of certain documents in respect of Jianteng Enterprise Limited (“Jianteng”) from the Companies Registry.

2.  Although the Respondent has previously filed two affirmations, they have been withdrawn with leave of the Court, so effectively leaving there being no evidence of opposition from the respondent. And since the respondent is absent today, despite various attempts to effect service on his last known address as well as via telephone, the Court decided that it was appropriate to deal with this summons today.

3.  The applicants apply for implementation of the Judgment of His Honour Judge Kent Yee of the District Court in DCCJ 4234/2015 dated 20 May 2019.  In that judgment, a declaration was granted declaring that certain documents filed with the Registry are forged documents, that such documents are null and void and have no legal effect, that the 2nd applicant was at all material times, and still is, the only legal owner of the entire issued shares of Jianteng and the only director of that company, and that 1st applicant was at all times, and still is, the only beneficial owner of those shares of Jianteng and the cross-border motor vehicle licence held by it.

4.  Concerning the background of this matter, it would be sufficient for me to recite the following three paragraphs in the Decision of His Honour Judge Kent Yee dated 4 November 2019, [2019] HKDC 1486:

“3. Very briefly stated, the plaintiffs’ claim is for the return of the entire issued shares (“the Shares”) in a local company known as Jianteng Enterprise Limited (“the Company”) held by Mankins Properties Limited (“MPL”) as the nominee of Mr Leung [Note: Mr Leung is the 1st applicant in the present proceedings.]. Mr Leung acquired the shares from Mr Wong (the 1st Defendant) on or about 10 August 2011. The Company holds the entire shares of a PRC company which is the registered owner of a cross-border vehicle licence. Mr Leung’s complaint is that from July 2012 to December 2014, the shares were without his knowledge or consent transferred from Mr Wong to Mr Yeung (the 2^nd Defendant), then from Mr Yeung to Mr Guo (the 3rd Defendant) and then Mr Guo to Mr Zheng (the 4th Defendant) by a series of forged documents filed with the Companies Registry. On or about 10 November 2014, despite the protest of Mr Leung and MPL [Note: MPL is the 2nd applicant in the present proceedings.], Mr Zheng purportedly transferred the shares to Mr Chan [Note: Mr Chan is Chan Kwok Ho, the respondent in the present application.].

4. The claim of Mr Leung against Mr Chan is based on the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.  Mr Chan is alleged to conspire with other defendants to deploy an unlawful means, viz, the filing of some forged documents with the Companies Registry thereby injuring the interest of Mr Leung and MPL in respect of the Shares.

5. After hearing the evidence of Mr Leung and examining the documentary evidence, in the absence of any challenge thereto and contrary evidence, with the assistance of Ms Xu, counsel for Mr Leung and MPL, this court came to the conclusion that the pleaded case of Mr Leung and MPL was borne out by the evidence and their claim against, among other defendants, Mr Chan was proved. This court hence entered judgment against, among other defendants, Mr Chan.”

5.  There is no reason why I should not grant the application to give effect to the Judgment of His Honour Judge Kent Yee. The order to expunge those forged documents from the Companies Registry is in line with the judgment of Madam Justice Queenie Au-Yeung in Cheer Holdings Limited and Another v Cheung Kin Wah [2018] HKCFI 404, where clearly in the present proceedings the applicants’ interest in removing the information, i.e. the forged documents, outweighs the interest of, in the present case, Mr Chan (as a matter of fact he has none), and the information continuing to appear in the Companies Registry.  Removal of the impugned forms is plainly more appropriate and just rectification.

6.  I would therefore grant the application and I shall now discuss with Ms Cheung for the applicants the terms of the order.