股東會議不切實際時法院召開會議的權力？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：DONG CHENGTIAN 及 WANG YONGPING 訴 CHONG CHA HWA 及其他人 (HCMP 738/2018), ZHANG CAIKUI 訴 CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及其他人 (HCMP 740/2018), LI MING 及其他人 訴 ZHANG CAIKUI 及 LI YANMIN (HCA 1282/2017) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林雲浩法官 (Hon G Lam J) - 判決日期：2018年5月30日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及中國山水投資有限公司 (China Shanshui Investment Company Limited, CSI) 於2018年5月8日舉行股東特別大會 (EGM) 時，主席Chong Cha Hwa拒絕承認並接納股東Zhang Caikui、Dong Chengtian及Wang Yongping的委任代表 (proxies)，並宣布會議法定人數不足。Chong拒絕委任代表的理由包括委任代表表格未經公證、簽署地點不明、股份所有權存在爭議等。Dong和Wang隨後根據《公司條例》(Companies Ordinance, Cap 622) 第724條提出呈請，指控不公平損害股東權益的行為，並申請召開股東特別大會及禁制現有董事會成員行事。Zhang Caikui亦根據《公司條例》第570條申請由法院召開股東特別大會。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於主席拒絕承認股東委任代表的理由是否有效，以及在公司股東特別大會因「不切實際」(impracticable) 而無法正常召開或進行的情況下，法院是否有權根據《公司條例》第570條命令召開股東特別大會並給予附帶指示。此外，法院亦需考慮是否應發出禁制令，禁止現有董事在新的股東特別大會召開前行事。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定主席拒絕承認委任代表的理由薄弱且不合理。法院強調，公司法規和公司章程並無要求委任代表表格必須公證或在特定地點簽署，且公司通常不應質疑股權登記冊背後的實益擁有權。鑑於主席的行為，以及此前一系列阻止股東會議召開或重組董事會的舉動，法院認為在現有情況下，按照公司章程和《公司條例》規定召開和進行股東特別大會已「不切實際」。因此，法院行使《公司條例》第570條賦予的廣泛權力，命令召開股東特別大會，並發出禁制令禁止現有董事行事，以確保股東能夠行使其罷免和委任董事的權利。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來支持其分析： - Re Universal Horizon Investment Ltd [2000] 3 HKC 627：關於公司不應質疑股權登記冊背後的實益擁有權。 - Re Perkins (1890) 24 QBD 613：同上。 - In re El Sombrero Ltd [1958] Ch 900：闡釋《公司條例》中「不切實際」(impracticable) 一詞的廣泛含義。 - Re Yaumati Kai Fong Welfare Advancement Association Ltd [2007] 4 HKLRD 643：重申「不切實際」的廣泛解釋，並指出法院應在特定情況下採取堅定立場。 - Re Mandarin Capital Advisory Co Ltd [2011] 2 HKLRD 1003：確認《公司條例》第570條（前身為第114B條）旨在解決因不切實際而無法行使罷免董事權利的問題。 - King Pacific International Holdings Ltd v Chun Kam Chiu & Others [2002] 3 HKLRD 49：支持在不公平損害股東權益的呈請中發出臨時禁制令的權力。 此外，本案亦引用了《公司條例》(Cap 622) 第570條、第634條、第724條、第725條及第729條。 ### 裁決與命令 法院命令中國山水投資有限公司於2018年5月20日召開股東特別大會，並給予附帶指示。同時，法院頒布禁制令，禁止Chong Cha Hwa和Zhao Yongkui在該股東特別大會召開前擔任並自稱為中國山水投資有限公司的董事。法院亦修改了早前對安永會計師事務所接管人 (EY Receivers) 的指示，使其適用於本次命令召開的股東特別大會。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在公司治理中，特別是當現有管理層試圖通過不當手段阻止股東行使其基本權利時，法院有權介入。判決強調了《公司條例》第570條在解決股東會議「不切實際」問題上的廣泛適用性，即使情況新穎，法院亦可運用此權力確保公司治理的正常運作。這對未來類似的股東權益爭議案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: DONG CHENGTIAN and WANG YONGPING v CHONG CHA HWA and Others (HCMP 738/2018), ZHANG CAIKUI v CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED and Others (HCMP 740/2018), LI MING and Others v ZHANG CAIKUI and LI YANMIN (HCA 1282/2017) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon G Lam J - Date of Judgment: 30 May 2018 ### Factual Background This case concerns an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of China Shanshui Investment Company Limited (CSI) held on May 8, 2018, where the chairman, Chong Cha Hwa, refused to recognize and admit the proxies of shareholders Zhang Caikui, Dong Chengtian, and Wang Yongping, declaring the meeting inquorate. Chong's reasons for rejecting the proxies included the proxy forms not being notarized, the signing location being unknown, and a dispute over share ownership. Dong and Wang subsequently filed a petition under Section 724 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct and sought an order for an EGM and injunctive relief against the existing board. Zhang Caikui also applied under Section 570 of the Companies Ordinance for the court to convene an EGM. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether the chairman's grounds for rejecting shareholder proxies were valid, and whether the court had the power under Section 570 of the Companies Ordinance to order an EGM and give ancillary directions when it was "impracticable" to call or conduct a general meeting in the prescribed manner. Additionally, the court had to consider if an injunction should be granted to restrain the existing directors from acting pending the new EGM. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found the chairman's reasons for rejecting the proxies to be flimsy and irrational. The court emphasized that company law and CSI's Articles did not require proxy forms to be notarized or signed in a specific location, and a company generally should not look behind the share register to question beneficial ownership. Given the chairman's actions and a history of attempts to prevent shareholder meetings or board reconstitution, the court concluded it was "impracticable" to conduct an EGM in the manner prescribed by the Articles and the Companies Ordinance. Therefore, the court exercised its broad power under Section 570 of the Companies Ordinance to order an EGM and granted an injunction to restrain the existing directors from acting, ensuring shareholders could exercise their rights to remove and appoint directors. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to support its analysis: - Re Universal Horizon Investment Ltd [2000] 3 HKC 627: Regarding a company generally not looking behind the share register for beneficial ownership. - Re Perkins (1890) 24 QBD 613: Same as above. - In re El Sombrero Ltd [1958] Ch 900: Interpreting the broad meaning of "impracticable" in the Companies Ordinance. - Re Yaumati Kai Fong Welfare Advancement Association Ltd [2007] 4 HKLRD 643: Reaffirming the broad interpretation of "impracticable" and the court's role in taking a firm line in specific circumstances. - Re Mandarin Capital Advisory Co Ltd [2011] 2 HKLRD 1003: Confirming that Section 570 (formerly 114B) addresses issues where the right to remove directors is impeded by impracticability. - King Pacific International Holdings Ltd v Chun Kam Chiu & Others [2002] 3 HKLRD 49: Supporting the power to grant interlocutory injunctions in unfairly prejudicial conduct petitions. Additionally, the judgment relied on Sections 570, 634, 724, 725, and 729 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). ### Decision & Orders The court ordered an Extraordinary General Meeting of China Shanshui Investment Company Limited to be held on May 20, 2018, with ancillary directions. An injunction was granted restraining Chong Cha Hwa and Zhao Yongkui from acting and holding themselves out as directors of CSI pending that EGM. The court also varied previous directions to the EY Receivers to extend them to the ordered EGM. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Hong Kong court's power to intervene in corporate governance, especially when existing management attempts to obstruct shareholders' fundamental rights through improper means. It highlights the broad applicability of Section 570 of the Companies Ordinance in addressing "impracticable" shareholder meetings, allowing the court to ensure proper corporate functioning even in novel situations. This provides significant guidance for future cases involving shareholder rights disputes. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.