Gao v Starlight Capital Ltd

Gao and Li, as trustees of the Gao and Li Family Trust, initiated legal proceedings against Starlight Capital Limited and Jason Li, asserting breaches of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) and misrepresentations. They also sought an interlocutory injunction to halt Starlight Capital's enforcement of a Property Law Act Notice. Starlight Capital, represented by RM Dillion, contested the claims and filed a summary judgment application. The plaintiffs, self-represented, sought to add a third defendant, Ms Hwang, an employee of Starlight Capital's legal counsel, Queen City Law, and to prohibit Queen City Law from continuing to represent Starlight Capital.

The court examined whether the plaintiffs had grounds to add Ms Hwang as a third defendant and to remove Queen City Law as Starlight Capital's legal counsel. The plaintiffs argued that Ms Hwang should be joined as a defendant for not providing requested AML/CFT information and for issuing a PLA Notice based on an expired loan agreement. They also claimed that Ms Hwang's refusal to provide AML/CFT information scared off a potential third-party lender and caused financial loss.

The court found that there was no legal obligation on Ms Hwang to provide AML/CFT information to the plaintiffs. The court also ruled that Ms Hwang's conduct in issuing the PLA Notice was not a personal liability but rather an action taken on behalf of Starlight Capital. The court concluded that no cause of action existed against Ms Hwang, and thus, there was no basis to join her as a third defendant or to prohibit Queen City Law from representing Starlight Capital.

The court dismissed both applications and awarded costs to Starlight Capital. The plaintiffs were encouraged to seek legal counsel for the future conduct of the proceedings. The court scheduled the summary judgment application and the substantive proceedings for a later date to set a timetable for prompt progress.