DINGWAY INVESTMENT LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

DINGWAY INVESTMENT LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

The court set aside the portion of the default judgment awarding US$45,076,164.38 for knowing receipt because, on the pleaded RASOC, P had no arguable proprietary interest in the Miami Land or the 2021 sale proceeds and therefore could not sustain a knowing receipt claim; however the court upheld liability for unlawful means conspiracy against D6 because P had pleaded compensable loss in the form of loss of the CCCC Shares and the repayment of shareholder loans and that claim was not barred by the reflective loss principle; consequentially enforcement garnishee and charging orders based solely on the set-aside knowing receipt judgment were dismissed and costs were apportioned to reflect...

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1976
Parties
Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation): DINGWAY INVESTMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: ZENG YUQI; 3rd Defendant: SZE WAI SUEN; 4th Defendant: REGA CENTER LLC; 5th Defendant: REGA CENTER MIAMI HOLDINGS LLC (formerly known as CCCC INTERNATIONAL USA LLC); 6th Defendant: GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED; 7th Defendant: REGA HOLDINGS LIMITED; 8th Defendant: CCCC MIAMI BEACH LLC; 9th Defendant: MEI LI (also known as LI MEI); 10th Defendant: EA SUNNY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 April 2026
Case Number
HCA309/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (commercial/company/equity Claims) / Interlocutory Applications — Setting Aside Default Judgment; Ancillary Enforcement and Variation Applications; Application for Leave to Amend Defence Adjourned
Outcome
Partially allowed: the default judgment as to knowing receipt (§1) is set aside; the judgment as to conspiracy liability (§2) is preserved; enforcement applications based on the set-aside part dismissed; substantive directions given for amendments and further hearing; detailed costs orders made on a nisi basis.
Legal Topics
Knowing Receipt, Proprietary Remedies, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Garnishee Order, Charging Order, Costs Allocation, Reflective Loss
Source Language
EN
Equity Trusts Company Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Knowing Receipt Proprietary Remedies Unlawful Means Conspiracy +6 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DINGWAY INVESTMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation)

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LIMITED

1st Defendant

ZENG YUQI

2nd Defendant

SZE WAI SUEN

3rd Defendant

REGA CENTER LLC

4th Defendant

REGA CENTER MIAMI HOLDINGS LLC (formerly known as CCCC INTERNATIONAL USA LLC)

5th Defendant

GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED

6th Defendant

REGA HOLDINGS LIMITED

7th Defendant

CCCC MIAMI BEACH LLC

8th Defendant

MEI LI (also known as LI MEI)

9th Defendant

EA SUNNY

10th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (commercial/company/equity Claims) / Interlocutory Applications — Setting Aside Default Judgment; Ancillary Enforcement and Variation Applications; Application for Leave to Amend Defence Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment could be sustained on the pleaded RASOC in respect of knowing receipt of US$45,076,164.38
  2. 2 Whether P had any proprietary interest in the Miami Land or the 2021 sale proceeds such as to ground a knowing receipt claim
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded conspiracy claim against D6 disclosed actionable damage and is barred by the reflective loss principle

Ratio Decidendi

The court set aside the portion of the default judgment awarding US$45,076,164.38 for knowing receipt because, on the pleaded RASOC, P had no arguable proprietary interest in the Miami Land or the 2021 sale proceeds and therefore could not sustain a knowing receipt claim; however the court upheld liability for unlawful means conspiracy against D6 because P had pleaded compensable loss in the form of loss of the CCCC Shares and the repayment of shareholder loans and that claim was not barred by the reflective loss principle; consequentially enforcement garnishee and charging orders based solely on the set-aside knowing receipt judgment were dismissed and costs were apportioned to reflect...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed: the default judgment as to knowing receipt (§1) is set aside; the judgment as to conspiracy liability (§2) is preserved; enforcement applications based on the set-aside part dismissed; substantive directions given for amendments and further hearing; detailed costs orders made on a nisi basis.

Orders

  • Set aside paragraph 1 of the default judgment dated 04.09.2025 (US$45,076,164.38) with interest; paragraph 2 of that judgment (damages for unlawful means conspiracy) to stand
  • Vary paragraph 5 of the judgment so that costs payable by D6 to P are confined to costs in respect of P's conspiracy claim against D6, to be taxed if not agreed