Arthur Wang Ming Way

On the court record

Arthur Wang Ming Way appears in the reported corpus as a company and commercial litigator, with insolvency, injunctions, civil procedure and shareholder disputes among the reported matters at the High Court and Court of Appeal. His insolvency work is visible in an application for the appointment of an interim judicial manager under section 405 of the Companies Act 2016, where the court considered the elements required for such an appointment and whether it was necessary. His injunction practice appears in an application for a Mareva freezing injunction, weighing whether there was a good arguable case, whether the defendant had assets within the jurisdiction and whether there was a real risk that those assets would be dissipated or moved before judgment could be satisfied.

His reported work also reaches the machinery of litigation and the conduct of advocates. He was engaged in interlocutory applications for the joinder of parties under Order 15 rules 4(1) and 6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 and for the amendment of pleadings under Order 20 rule 5(1), and as intervener in a Court of Appeal matter arising under section 103E of the Legal Profession Act 1976, where a question was whether it was misconduct to describe an opposing litigant — who was himself an advocate and solicitor — in disparaging terms. In a company matter he appeared on a minority-oppression claim concerning the conduct of majority shareholders and directors, alleged mismanagement and the diversion of company funds, related-party transactions, the transfer of shares to a related company and financial assistance. Across these reported decisions his work moves between corporate insolvency, freezing relief, the procedural conduct of litigation and shareholder oppression, marking Arthur Wang Ming Way as a company and commercial litigator of broad range. Across these reported decisions the recurring thread is the machinery through which a company dispute is fought — the appointment of an interim officer, the freezing of assets, the joinder of parties, the discipline of advocates and the substantive claim of oppression — marking a practice equally at home with the interlocutory battle and the shareholder trial.