Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Account of partnership

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2014

CHAU WANG FAT EDDIE v. CHIM CHUN CHOY also known as CHIM CHUN CHOI

Citation

CHAU WANG FAT EDDIE v. CHIM CHUN CHOY also known as CHIM CHUN CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA485/2012

The application for a Mareva injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a good arguable case that, on a proper account, a net sum approaching HK$20,000,000 was due; receivers were already safeguarding partnership assets; there was no persuasive evidence of dissipation; and the plaintiff’s inordinate delay and failure to pursue an account weighed against granting interlocutory relief. An order for an account under O.43 was the appropriate remedy.
23 Dec 2008

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2215/2008

The Mareva injunction was continued until trial because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong arguable case for an account and for specific performance of the written undertaking to pay sale proceeds, there was a real risk of dissipation by the defendants and the balance of convenience favoured continuing the restraint with limited living expense allowance and without fortification.
14 Aug 2007

HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA485/2006

The application was allowed because the pleadings established a partnership and the Plaintiff's responsibility for the US business, there was no preliminary question to be tried, the Plaintiff's prior account was inadequate and the 1st Defendant was entitled in the exercise of the court's discretion to a verified true and proper account of the US subsidiaries; reference to HKSA practice was unnecessary.
15 Feb 2006

YEUNG YUK YIN v. CHIU TAT SI AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG YUK YIN v. CHIU TAT SI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4556/2003

Section 53 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance does not clearly amend the common law rule; an executor must produce the grant of probate to obtain final relief that requires proof of title. The interlocutory stage of this action had not reached the point requiring production of probate, so the stay of the overarching action was removed but the plaintiff's summons for a final account was dismissed absent production of probate.
5 Nov 2001

LEUNG WING YIU v. SIU KING YUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG WING YIU v. SIU KING YUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5382/1996

Interim payment against the 1st and 3rd defendants is refused because Cheung J's orders must be read in the context of partnership law requiring an overall account on dissolution; the interlocutory assessment for delivery up/damages does not, in the special context, give the plaintiff an entitlement to immediate payment of the full value of assets prior to accounting. The claim against the 2nd defendant may proceed limited to the plaintiff's own interest and requires valuation evidence.
28 Sept 1999

CHUNG SIU HONG CELMENT AND OTHERS v. PRIMEQUINE CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUNG SIU HONG CELMENT AND OTHERS v. PRIMEQUINE CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10332/1999

The arbitration clause was capable of performance despite reference to a defunct or misnamed appointing body because the parties' common intention was to have the head of the New Zealand authority responsible for thoroughbred racing recommend an independent lawyer; disputes arising from the interpretation and operation of the agreements (including claims ancillary to dissolution and accounts) fall within the clause and must be referred to arbitration under Article 8 of the Model Law.
5 Nov 1998

LEUNG TONG FUK v. CHAN YUK KWAN

Citation

LEUNG TONG FUK v. CHAN YUK KWAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/1998

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to overturn the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and Court of Appeal, failed to establish legal standing to recover the seller's price on behalf of Lien Yig, and the claims were time-barred under Limitation Ordinance Cap.347 ss.4(1)(a) and 4(2).

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAU WANG FAT EDDIE v. CHIM CHUN CHOY also known as CHIM CHUN CHOI

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

HO MAN YEE v. LIAO ZHE AND ANOTHER

YEUNG YUK YIN v. CHIU TAT SI AND ANOTHER

LEUNG WING YIU v. SIU KING YUEN AND OTHERS

CHUNG SIU HONG CELMENT AND OTHERS v. PRIMEQUINE CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

LEUNG TONG FUK v. CHAN YUK KWAN