bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

The five sisters of security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee's late husband acted in concert to expel their nephew from the family company's board of directors, a judge ruled yesterday.

However, the Ip sisters - notably former legislator Henrietta Ip Man-hing - had reason to not re-elect Arnold Ip Tin-chee to the board of Ching Hing Construction in July 1996, Deputy Judge Poon Shiu-chor said.

Mr Ip's expulsion came one year after he launched an action against Ching Hing - the brainchild of his late grandparents - over a Fei Ngo Shan property worth about $100 million.

In his 102-page judgment on a buyout/winding-up petition by Mr Ip and his mother, Cecilia Chan Kit-lai, Judge Poon said Mr Ip was not re-elected solely because of his 1995 lawsuit.

The judge said in the Court of First Instance that it would have been 'administratively inconvenient to have a person suing the company to sit on the board'.

But he rejected Mr Ip's claim that his aunts had singled him out and discriminated against him out of revenge.

Judge Poon threw out all the allegations Mr Ip and Ms Chan had levelled against the Ip sisters in their petition.

He rejected Mr Ip's claim there had been an understanding among the Ip family that every shareholder had a right to be a director. Neither was there unfair prejudice against the mother and son as shareholders.

The petitioners had asked the court to force a buyout of their shares in Ching Hing, which until the 1980s was a prosperous construction business. They also demanded that the loss-making company be wound up. Both demands were rejected.

They claimed they had effectively been excluded from a share of the company's funds and assets. Instead of declaring dividends for shareholders, Ching Hing has distributed its funds and assets in the form of directors' salaries since 1992.

Ching Hing claims to be the owner of a property on Fei Ngo Shan Road, which has been registered in Mr Ip's name since May 1995. He alleges the property was a gift from his late grandfather, Ip Ching-ping, to his father, Henry Ip Man-shan, who died in August 1988. Mr Ip claims the property was passed on to him after his father died. Judge Poon noted the property lawsuit was not part of the case before him.



Judge finds for five Ip sisters in feud over family company