CHIEF FINE INVESTMENTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. KINGSTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

CHIEF FINE INVESTMENTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. KINGSTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

The appeal is dismissed because the ASOC, properly read, fails to plead the essential material facts and particulars necessary to found causes of action against the 1st and 5th defendants (dishonest scheme/conspiracy, knowing receipt and breach of duties). The allegations are scattered, lack timing, agreement terms and pleaded bases for third‑party knowledge; legal defences (eg. D1 was never a secured creditor; s.60 CPO inapplicable) demonstrate the pleadings cannot possibly succeed. Accordingly the claims against the 1st and 5th defendants are plainly unsustainable and are struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a). No leave to amend was granted in the absence of draft amendments and...

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3729
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chief Fine Investments Limited (in liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: Joint and Several Liquidator of Chief Fine Investments Limited (Tang); 1st Defendant: Kingston Capital Investment Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ample Sparkle Development Limited; 3rd Defendant: Assen Limited (in liquidation); 4th Defendant: Sky Fair Development Limited; 5th Defendant: Cheung Ying Ho
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 December 2024
Case Number
HCA996/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / Decision on Appeal From Master’s Strike‑out Ruling (order 18 R.19)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; strike‑out order against 1st and 5th defendants upheld
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Constructive Trust, Knowing Receipt, Conspiracy to Injure, Striking Out, Abuse of Process, Undervalue Sale (s.60 Cpo), Contractual Estoppel, Mortgagee Sale
Source Language
EN
Trusts Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Conveyancing Equity Bankruptcy Resulting Trust +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Fine Investments Limited (in liquidation)

1st Plaintiff

Joint and Several Liquidator of Chief Fine Investments Limited (Tang)

2nd Plaintiff

Kingston Capital Investment Limited

1st Defendant

Ample Sparkle Development Limited

2nd Defendant

Assen Limited (in liquidation)

3rd Defendant

Sky Fair Development Limited

4th Defendant

Cheung Ying Ho

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / Decision on Appeal From Master’s Strike‑out Ruling (order 18 R.19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st and 5th defendants
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts properly particularise a dishonest scheme or conspiratorial agreement
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser (2nd defendant) was properly pleaded to have knowledge (knowing receipt/constructive trustee)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the ASOC, properly read, fails to plead the essential material facts and particulars necessary to found causes of action against the 1st and 5th defendants (dishonest scheme/conspiracy, knowing receipt and breach of duties). The allegations are scattered, lack timing, agreement terms and pleaded bases for third‑party knowledge; legal defences (eg. D1 was never a secured creditor; s.60 CPO inapplicable) demonstrate the pleadings cannot possibly succeed. Accordingly the claims against the 1st and 5th defendants are plainly unsustainable and are struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a). No leave to amend was granted in the absence of draft amendments and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; strike‑out order against 1st and 5th defendants upheld

Orders

  • Claims against the 1st and 5th Defendants struck out pursuant to Order 18 r.19(1)(a)
  • Order in terms of paragraph 1 of the 1st Defendant’s summons dated 28 July 2023 and paragraph 1 of the 5th Defendant’s summons dated 25 July 2023