PETER SHOIKHET AND ANOTHER v. CHEN GUOQIANG

PETER SHOIKHET AND ANOTHER v. CHEN GUOQIANG

Because the defendant defaulted and the pleaded facts established that the plaintiffs were induced by fraud to transfer US$134,400 which the defendant received without consideration, the defendant was unjustly enriched and a constructive trust attached to the funds; default judgment was therefore appropriate and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 369
Parties
1st Plaintiff: PETER SHOIKHET; 2nd Plaintiff: GALE SHOIKHET; Defendant: CHEN GUOQIANG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 April 2022
Case Number
DCCJ5820/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Email Fraud / Unjust Enrichment / Proprietary Claim / Default Judgment Application (order 19 R7)
Outcome
Default judgment entered for plaintiffs against defendant for repayment and equitable relief
Legal Topics
Email Fraud, Substituted Service, Default Judgment, Constructive Trust, Section 38 a District Court Ordinance, Mareva Injunction, Tracing, Interest and Costs
Source Language
en
Equity Unjust Enrichment Fraud Civil Procedure Banking Law Trusts and Proprietary Remedies Email Fraud Substituted Service +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PETER SHOIKHET

1st Plaintiff

GALE SHOIKHET

2nd Plaintiff

CHEN GUOQIANG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Email Fraud / Unjust Enrichment / Proprietary Claim / Default Judgment Application (order 19 R7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered for plaintiffs under Order 19 r7
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was unjustly enriched and liable to repay funds transferred under a mistake induced by fraud
  3. 3 Whether a constructive trust arises over the funds

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant defaulted and the pleaded facts established that the plaintiffs were induced by fraud to transfer US$134,400 which the defendant received without consideration, the defendant was unjustly enriched and a constructive trust attached to the funds; default judgment was therefore appropriate and the court may order repayment, a declaration of trust, compel execution of transfer documents and nominate a person under s38A if the defendant fails to comply, plus continuation of the Mareva injunction; interest and costs were ordered as adjusted to reflect actual enrichment and conduct.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for plaintiffs against defendant for repayment and equitable relief

Orders

  • Judgment for repayment of the Sum transferred (US$134,400) and declaration that the defendant holds the funds on constructive trust for the plaintiffs
  • Order that the defendant execute such documents as may reasonably be required to instruct the Bank to transfer the balance of the Sum now in the defendant's account to the plaintiffs through their Hong Kong solicitors' client account