CHEUNG HING v. WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LTD

HCMP 9/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 9 OF 2017

____________________

____________________

____________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On this return date of Mr Cheung’s application for leave to bring a statutory derivative action in the name of the defendant company against Marcellotino Limited and Good Brothers Finance Limited, there seem to me to be circumstances appearing in Mr Cheung’s affirmation that prima facie raise concern, but, quite apart from the need to allow an opportunity for the defendant to file evidence, if it wishes, to contest the application, there are a few matters that need to be looked into.

2.  B Chu J granted an injunction in HCA 336/2008 on 10 November 2014 which on the face of it prevented the Company from dealing in any way with the property.  That injunction extended to Mr Wong Chor‑cheung who was the 1^st defendant in that action.  Further, there were orders made by B Chu J on 13 August 2015 and 22 December 2016 in the same action requiring Mr Wong and the Company to provide Mr Cheung with certain information and documents, including information regarding the mortgages with Marcellotino Limited and Good Brothers Finance Limited.  It is not clear whether, and to what extent, these orders have been complied with.

3.  The dispute between Mr Cheung and Mr Wong in relation to the Company and the Plantation Road property has generated a great deal of actions and proceedings.  There are already more than one derivative action commenced in the name of the Company.  In considering this new application for leave to bring another derivative action, the court should be apprised of their status and position as part of the overall circumstances.

4.  Further, apparently some of the derivative actions commenced in the name of the Company have come to a standstill because Mr Cheung, as a litigant in person, has not been able to progress them.  It is a question that the court as well as the parties need to consider whether further proceedings should be brought in the name of the Company unless it is shown that they will be pursued and serve a purpose. 

5.  I will therefore adjourn the Originating Summons sine die with liberty to restore.  That will also allow an opportunity for the technical matters raised by Mr Wong on behalf of the Company to be dealt with and resolved if the proceedings are to be pursued further.