|
CAMP 100/2024 and CAMP 101/2024
(Heard together)
[2024] HKCA 767
On an intended appeal from
[2024] HKCFI 1470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.100 OF 2024
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1676 OF 2011)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
|
BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LIMITED
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
ZHENG DELI (鄭德利) also known as
CHEANG LEI and CHEANG TAK LEI
|
Defendant
|
________________________
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.101 OF 2024
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1867 OF 1999)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
|
BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LIMITED
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
TSUI YEE KWAN
|
Defendant
|
________________________
(Heard together)
|
Before:
|
Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
9 August 2024
|
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):
Introduction
1.
There are before the court two renewed applications for leave to appeal issued by the plaintiff in HCA 1867/1999 and HCA 1676/2011 (collectively “the Actions”), which had been ordered to be tried together. We will deal with the two applications together as the issues and arguments involved in the two applications are identical.
2.
By the two applications, the plaintiff seeks to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Tsui (as Tsui J then was, “the Judge”) made on 21 May 2024
[1]
, refusing the plaintiff’s application that the defendants in the Actions be disallowed from challenging the plaintiff’s authority to sue in the trial of the Actions. Leave to appeal was refused by the Judge on 22 May 2024. The trial of the Actions has since commenced. The evidence had concluded and the parties are due to return to the Judge for closing submissions on 29 August 2024.
3.
Having considered the papers filed in the applications and the parties’ written submissions, we consider it is appropriate to determine the applications on paper without an oral hearing pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(5)(a) of the Rules of the High Court,
Cap. 4A
.
HCA 1867/1999 and HCA 1676/2011
4.
The defendant in HCA 1676/2011 (“Zheng”) and the defendant in HCA 1867/1999 (“Tsui”) are husband and wife.
5.
The dispute in the Actions concerns the ultimate ownership of certain property held by the plaintiff. In a nutshell, the plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff (which was used to acquire the property in question) was beneficially owned by certain state-owned entities. Zheng and Tsui, on the other hand, contend that the plaintiff and also the property belong beneficially to the shareholders of the plaintiff, which include Zheng, who was also a director at all material times. It seems to us that it is common ground that the primary issue in the Actions is whether the shares in the plaintiff, and in turn the property in question, is beneficially owned by Zheng or held by him on trust
| 
Back
