Andrew Lynn appeared for the Plaintiff, Roger Ver, in Ver, Roger Keith v OKEX Fintech Company (formerly known as Kind Castle Trading Company) and Xu, Ming Xing (徐明星) (HCA 2439/2016), in which the High Court of Hong Kong on 14 May 2020 dismissed an appeal by the 2nd Defendant, Xu Ming Xing (known as “Star Xu”), seeking to set aside leave to serve him out of the jurisdiction in Mainland China.
Andrew Lynn appeared in the High Court on Monday this week – on the first day of the Hong Kong courts’ reopening at the end of the General Adjourned Period (“GAP”) imposed as a result of the COVID-19 virus – acting for the plaintiff, Roger Ver, in the case of Ver, Roger Keith v OKEX Fintech Company (formerly known as Kind Castle Trading Company) and Xu, Ming Xing (徐明星) (HCA 2439/2016).
Counsel, solicitors, and observers had their temperatures checked, social distancing was observed, and oral submissions were made through disposable masks.
There have been two recent decisions of the Supreme Court in England which it would be useful for any Hong Kong practitioner to consider when dealing with the fundamental questions of (1) whether the relationship is one to which vicarious liability principles apply and (2) whether, even if it is such a relationship, the employee’s wrongdoing is such that liability should attach to the employer.
- Recent Cases
- 14 April 2020
Andrew Lynn represented the plaintiff company in successfully resisting an application by the defendant companies for summary judgment on their counterclaim in the latest episode of a long-running High Court pensions dispute, beginning with the plaintiff’s successful application for a preservation order over certain pension fund assets in Connaught West Ltd v Global Fiduciary Solutions and Others  HKCFI 40 (in which Andrew also appeared).
The Court of Appeal upholds the principle of requiring a warrant to access contents of a mobile phone whilst clarifying warrantless searches can only be conducted with reference to the concept of “reasonable practicability” as submitted by Dr Gerard McCoy QC, SC, and Albert N B Wong (for the 2nd Interested Party).
Timothy Harry appeared in Popely v Popely EWHC 667 (Ch), where the High Court in England was tasked to consider whether to make a third party costs order against someone who was not a party to the proceedings but who it was said was the driving force behind the litigation, which involved allegations of fraudulent misappropriation. The equivalent provisions in Hong Kong are section 52A(2)of the High Court Ordinance(Cap.4) and RHC O.62, r 6A. The Court made the Order for costs.
- Recent Cases
- 28 March 2020