Arbitral Digest

Matter

Amadeaus Investment Limited v Dr Lin Kao Kun (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance HCA 2379/2015)

Hong Kong proceedings concerning service and renewal of a writ in a commercial dispute involving Amadeaus Investment and Dr Lin Kao Kun.

  • Cross-border litigation

Procedural record

  1. 4 October 2016Hong Kong

    4 October 2016Hong Kong

    Order of Master Chow dated 4 October 2016

    High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Decision summary
    Master Chow extended the validity of the writ of summons in Amadeaus Investment Limited's action against Dr Lin Kao Kun.

    Participants

    Amadeaus Investment Limited
    Dr Lin Kao Kun
    High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    Master Chow
  2. 4 October 2016Hong Kong

    4 October 2016Hong Kong

    Order of Master Chow in HCA 2379/2015 dated 4 October 2016

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCA 2379/2015
    Decision summary
    Master Chow extended the validity of the writ for 12 months.

    Participants

    Amadeaus Investment Limited
    Dr. Lin Kao Kun
    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    Chow

    2 years and 11 days later · 741 days

  3. 15 October 2018Hong Kong

    15 October 2018Hong Kong

    Decision of Master K Lo in HCA 2379/2015 dated 15 October 2018

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCA 2379/2015
    Decision summary
    Master K Lo dismissed Dr. Lin Kao Kun's summons seeking to set aside the order extending the validity of the writ and the service of the writ and to dismiss the action.

    Participants

    Amadeaus Investment Limited
    Dr. Lin Kao Kun
    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    K Lo
  4. 15 October 2018Hong Kong

    15 October 2018Hong Kong

    Decision of the High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance in the case HCA 2379/2015 dated 15 October 2018

    High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCA 2379/2015
    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 2343
    Decision summary
    The Court held that Amadeaus Investment Limited showed good reason to extend the validity of the writ in this Category 2 case, where the claim had become time-barred before the extension application. It held that the difficulty of locating and serving Dr Lin Kao Kun justified exercising the discretion to extend the writ, dismissed Dr Lin's application to set aside the renewal order and service and to dismiss the action, and ordered him to pay the application costs subject to summary assessment.

    Participants

    Amadeaus Investment Limited
    Representative
    T Lee (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Representative
    Howse Williams Bowers (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Representative
    Withington (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Dr Lin Kao Kun
    Representative
    M C Law (For: Dr Lin Kao Kun)
    Representative
    ONC Lawyers (For: Dr Lin Kao Kun)
    High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    K Lo

    Authorities cited

    14
    • Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Co Ltd v Hu Hung Chiu ([2011] 1 HKLRD 1000)
      case-law
    • Kenneth Allison Ltd v A E Limehouse and Co ([1992] 2 AC 105)
      case-law
    • Axa China Region Insurance Co Ltd v Leong Fong Cheng (CACV113/2016)
      case-law
    • Ener-G Holdings Plc v Hormell ([2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1162)
      case-law
    • Leung Kin Fook v Eastern Worldwide Co Ltd ([1991] 1 HKC 55)
      case-law
    • East Asia Satellite Television Holding Ltd v New Cotai LLC ([2011] 3 HKLRD 134)
      case-law
    • Standard Chartered Bank v Lai Arthur ([1993] 1 HKC 375)
      case-law
    • Tiong King Sing v Sam Boon Peng Yee and another (HCMP1289/2011)
      case-law
    • Deutsche Ruckversicherung AG v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd ([1995] 1 WLR 1017)
      case-law
    • Secretary for Justice v Chan Yin Bing ([1999] 1 HKC 269)
      case-law
    • Peconic Industrial Development Co Ltd v Chio Ho-cheong ([2000] HKCFI 656)
      case-law
    • Battersby v Anglo American Oil Co Ltd ([1945] KB 23)
      case-law
    • Sealegend Holdings Ltd v China TaiPing Insurance (HK) Co Ltd ([2013] 4 HKLRD 508)
      case-law
    • Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe ([1988] 1 WLR 1350)
      case-law

    5 months and 12 days later · 163 days

  5. 27 March 2019Hong Kong

    27 March 2019Hong Kong

    Decision of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance in the case HCA 2379/2015 dated 27 March 2019

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCA 2379/2015
    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 797
    Decision summary
    The Court dismissed Dr. Lin Kao Kun's appeal against the dismissal of his summons to set aside the order extending the validity of the writ and the service of the writ. It held that Amadeaus Investment Limited had demonstrated good reason for the extension, exercised its discretion in favour of the extension, rejected the allegation of material non-disclosure, and ordered nisi that the plaintiff have the costs of the appeal.

    Participants

    Amadeaus Investment Limited
    Representative
    Thomas Lee (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Representative
    Howse Williams Bowers (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Representative
    Michael Withington (For: Amadeaus Investment Limited)
    Dr. Lin Kao Kun
    Representative
    Clifford Smith SC (For: Dr. Lin Kao Kun)
    Representative
    ONC Lawyers (For: Dr. Lin Kao Kun)
    Representative
    Yan Sherman Cheuk Ning (For: Dr. Lin Kao Kun)
    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    Keith Yeung SC
    Other
    Witness
    Michael Withington
    Witness
    Yan Sherman Cheuk Ning

    Authorities cited

    17
    • Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347)
      statute
    • Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Barbrak Ltd ([1987] AC 597)
      case-law
    • Chow Ching Man v Sun Wah Ornament Manufactory Ltd ([1996] 2 HKLR 338)
      case-law
    • Sealegend Holdings Ltd v China Taiping Insurance (HK) Ltd ([2013] 4 HKLRD 508)
      case-law
    • Grand Pacific Equity Ltd v RSH Sports (HK) Ltd ([2006] 4 HKLRD 617)
      case-law
    • Leung Kin Fook v Eastern Worldwide Co Ltd ([1991] 1 HKC 55)
      case-law
    • Wang King-fong v Chan Fook-hong ([1961] HKLR 448)
      case-law
    • Deutsche Rückversicherung AG v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd ([1995] 1 WLR 1017)
      case-law
    • Battersby v Anglo-American Oil Co Ltd ([1945] KB 23)
      case-law
    • Abela v Baadarani ([2013] UKSC 44)
      case-law
    • AXA China Region Insurance Co Ltd v Leong Fong Cheng ([2016] 6 HKC 220)
      case-law
    • Kenneth Allison Ltd v A E Limehouse & Co ([1992] 2 AC 105)
      case-law
    • Deutsche Bank AG, Hong Kong Branch v Zhang Hong Li ([2016] 3 HKLRD 303)
      case-law
    • Waddon v Whitecroft Scovell Ltd ([1988] 1 WLR 309)
      case-law
    • Bidder v Bridges ((1884) 26 Ch D 1)
      case-law
    • Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
      statute
    • Arrangement for Mutual Service of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong Courts 1999 (1999 Arrangement)
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

Amadeaus Investment Limited v Dr Lin Kao Kun (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance HCA 2379/2015) · Matter