Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court granted relief from sanction for an unless order, refused default judgment, and declined to discharge the varied injunction save for the proprietary injunction against D3-D5.
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing principles: the applicant actively participated in serious telephone scams targeting elderly victims and knowingly handled proceeds; the one-third guilty-plea discount already reflected his cooperation and admissions; s.27 Cap.455 aggravation was properly invoked and reasonably modulated to 25%; the aggregate sentence of 56 months was not manifestly excessive and involved no error of principle.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance granted summary judgment for HK$2,050,000 against the second defendant, rejecting bona fide purchaser and change of position defences.
The court held D1 and D3 liable in unjust enrichment after a fraud-induced payment of US$998,750 was sent to D1 and partly traced to D3, and continued a Mareva injunction for six months.
The High Court allowed amendment of a legal-fees claim in part, rejecting strike-out, but refused fraud amendments for lack of affidavit support for service out.
The trial judge rightly accepted the victims' consistent identification evidence and related documentary evidence and permissibly inferred the applicant's participation in a joint fraudulent scheme; there is no demonstrable error warranting appellate intervention, so leave to appeal is refused.
Source excerpt
The court found the HK$199,900 received by the second defendant was traceable to the plaintiff’s funds misappropriated by fraud, that the receipt constituted unjust enrichment, and the second defendant failed to prove she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly the second defendant was ordered to repay HK$199,900 with interest and to pay the plaintiff’s costs (subject to specified legal aid charge and assessment rules).
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal granted the 4th to 6th Defendants leave to adduce 17 further items of new evidence in a fraud appeal, with costs in the cause.
The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks standing to sue for reflective losses of the company; the core factual issues (receipt signed and non-payment of instalments) are final by the winding‑up proceedings and re-litigation is an abuse of process; the amended pleadings fail to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants (including no duty by the solicitor to the plaintiff) and the defects are incurable; accordingly the strike-out order was correctly made and fresh evidence is not admitted.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal continued Mareva injunctions in a cross-border fraud case, rejected non-disclosure challenges, and reduced the ceiling to US$150 million.
Explore more
