SAT KAI CHUEN v. LAW CHI KUN AND OTHERS

HCA 1827/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1827 OF 2018

________________

________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  This is an application for interim relief by the plaintiff against the eight defendants and the 9th intended defendant. 

2.  At the hearing, Mr So, counsel for the plaintiff, has narrowed the application just to focus on the 1st defendant, and he seeks three interim reliefs. 

3.  The first one is to restrain the 1st defendant from acting as a member of the election preparation committee by taking part in the administration or supervision of the election of the balloting committee to take place on 2 September in the afternoon at a restaurant in Tsim Sha Tsui and also the subsequent election of the thirty-seventh board of directors of the intended 10th defendant by the balloting committee.

4.  The second interim relief is to appoint the plaintiff or his nominated representative, who should be a member of the intended 10th defendant, to sit as an observer in the election preparation committee for the 2018 election and that such member be entitled to exercise all rights of a member of the election preparation working committee save and except that he has no power to vote.

5.  The third interim relief is that the 1st to 8th defendants and the 9th and 10th intended defendants be enjoined from doing anything to frustrate the 1st and 2nd interim reliefs as may be granted. 

6.  I have pointed out to Mr So that there are two parts in the first interim relief.  The second part is to stop the 1st defendant from functioning as a member of the balloting committee to be elected by all members who shall be present at the meeting to take place on 2 September.  That is to ask me to enjoin the 1st defendant from discharging duties as an elected member of that committee and that is against the will of all those members who will elect him to the balloting committee.  After due consideration, Mr So withdrew this part of the interim relief. 

7.  For the second interim relief, I asked Mr So for the source of my authority to grant such a relief, but he has not been able to point to any save and except section 730 of the Companies Ordinance which allows me to grant an injunction.  I do not consider the scope of an injunction would include the power to appoint the plaintiff or somebody nominated by him to sit as an observer in the election preparation working committee.  So I will not grant the second interim relief.

8.  Now, the first interim relief and the part of the third interim relief relating to the first interim relief are to perpetrate the fifth final relief in the plaintiff’s endorsement of claim.  That final relief reads:

“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for a declaration that all defendants purportedly elected as directors and officers of the intended 10th defendant are void ab initio.”

9.  The basis for that is because the plaintiff’s case that a document recording the results of the election of the 2016 balloting committee contained a signature of his which is forged.  The plaintiff does not seek to challenge the result of that election.  In fact, he has signed that result record sheet as a member of the 2016 balloting committee but there was another space for him to sign as the supervising member of that committee.  His allegation is that that signature is a forged one. 

10.  Since he has signed as a member although not also as a supervising member, he must have been satisfied with the record of the result as being accurate.  In any event, if the result of the election of the 2016 balloting committee is correct, then despite the record of such result being tainted by a forged signature, which is contested, that tainted signature would not have tainted the actual election result.  Therefore, I do not see any basis for saying that since the record of result has a tainted signature, therefore the election result would become invalid ab initio.  It does not follow.  I therefore find that there is no serious question to be argued for relief No. 5. 

11.  Since there is no serious question to be argued for relief No. 5, there is no basis to grant any interim relief to perpetrate that final relief.  On that basis, I dismiss the inter partes summons or as varied in terms of the application for interim relief presented to me this morning.