B.I.S. Consultants Ltd. vs. Dao Heng Bank Ltd.
[公司法]B.I.S. CONSULTANTS LTD. v DAO HENG BANK LTD.[诉讼].[香港]
[案件事实]Facts:
The plaintiff brought these proceedings in order to obtain an account from the defendant for the proceeds of sale of a property, formerly owned by the plaintiff, sold in a mortgagee sale by the defendant, pursuant to orders in separate proceedings between the same parties. The plaintiff sought an order for interim payment, under R.S.C Order 29, rules 10 and 12, of part of the proceeds of sale which was surplus to the amount claimed by the mortgagee. A master granted an order for interim payment. The defendant appealed. The defendant contended that the order should be declined in the exercise of the court's discretion, because of related proceedings between the parties and parties associated with them.
The plaintiff was a company which was wholly-owned by Graham Margot, who had previously been employed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant. As part of Margot's employment benefits his company, the plaintiff, was granted a mortgage by his employer's parent company, the defendant. After Margot's employment ended: (a) his employer sued him in separate proceedings and was awarded over $2 million in damages; and (b) the mortgage became in default and the defendant commenced mortgagee sale proceedings, which eventually led to the sale of the plaintiff's property. The award of damages was stayed pending an inquiry in damages under an interlocutory injunction which was discharged at trial. The defendant submitted that the court should exercise its discretion to decline to order interim payment until the inquiry in damages was heard and the stay of execution lifted.
[判决结果]Held:
1. Incorporated bodies had a separate legal personality; although the courts had shown an increased willingness to "lift the corporate veil" in recent years it was not appropriate to do so in this case since, on the evidence, there was not a sufficient relationship between me parties in this case. (See p. 449D.)
[案件事实]Facts:
The plaintiff brought these proceedings in order to obtain an account from the defendant for the proceeds of sale of a property, formerly owned by the plaintiff, sold in a mortgagee sale by the defendant, pursuant to orders in separate proceedings between the same parties. The plaintiff sought an order for interim payment, under R.S.C Order 29, rules 10 and 12, of part of the proceeds of sale which was surplus to the amount claimed by the mortgagee. A master granted an order for interim payment. The defendant appealed. The defendant contended that the order should be declined in the exercise of the court's discretion, because of related proceedings between the parties and parties associated with them.
The plaintiff was a company which was wholly-owned by Graham Margot, who had previously been employed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant. As part of Margot's employment benefits his company, the plaintiff, was granted a mortgage by his employer's parent company, the defendant. After Margot's employment ended: (a) his employer sued him in separate proceedings and was awarded over $2 million in damages; and (b) the mortgage became in default and the defendant commenced mortgagee sale proceedings, which eventually led to the sale of the plaintiff's property. The award of damages was stayed pending an inquiry in damages under an interlocutory injunction which was discharged at trial. The defendant submitted that the court should exercise its discretion to decline to order interim payment until the inquiry in damages was heard and the stay of execution lifted.
[判决结果]Held:
1. Incorporated bodies had a separate legal personality; although the courts had shown an increased willingness to "lift the corporate veil" in recent years it was not appropriate to do so in this case since, on the evidence, there was not a sufficient relationship between me parties in this case. (See p. 449D.)