Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of administrators

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2023

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. VANTAGE NEW GENERATION SECURITIES LTD (formerly known as Global Group Securities Limited)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1175/2023

The court was satisfied on the material before it that the defendant had contravened the specified provisions of the SFO and subsidiary legislation (including improper inclusion of a HK$1,179,000 commission receivable in liquid capital, failure to notify and keep records, failure to segregate and reconcile client money, failure to issue statements and failure to keep records) and that it was desirable under SFO s213 to appoint joint and several administrators to administer the defendant's property; accordingly declarations were granted and administrators appointed and costs awarded to the pla…
10 May 2022

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. DFRF ENTERPRISES LLC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2189/2016

On the evidence (uncontested by defendants) the court found that DFRF and its principal orchestrated a fraudulent membership scheme and repeatedly advised Hong Kong members to convert membership units into preferred shares while unlicensed, issued advertisements and invitations to the public and made fraudulent misrepresentations in breach of SFO ss.114(1), 109(1), 103(1) and 107(1); D4 and D5 knowingly assisted by permitting investor funds into their Hong Kong bank accounts. Consequently the court granted the SFC's application under s.213 for declarations, prohibitory injunctions, restitutio…
19 Apr 2022

HO CHIU KING, PANSY CATILINA v. HO, ANGELA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1111
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCA4042/2020

The court exercised its discretion under s36 PAO to pass over competing minority demands and appointed the KPMG nominees alone because KPMG are independent and competent, the appointment is supported by the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries, the asserted need for A&M as 'representation' or for complementary skills was speculative and insufficient to justify appointing a second professional firm, and appointing A&M would cause duplication and increased costs.
10 Aug 2020

PO KA YING v. CHU PUI LAI KITTY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1263/2018

The court required immediate determination of beneficiary status and directed the defendant to state whether she will cease as administratrix, to provide candidate co-administrators and to file accounts and affirmations within fixed short timeframes; appointment of administrators and resolution of contested issues will follow on the papers or at the next CMC after a crystallised list of issues and expert timetables are provided.
29 Jan 2018

LAU KIN WING KEN AND ANOTHER v. DENG YUJIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP21/2013

On the balance of probabilities the Deceased had testamentary capacity when executing the November 2011 Will and knew and approved its contents; accordingly the November Will is valid and probate is to be upheld.
18 Feb 2016

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP4/2011

The ACB application was dismissed because the applicant failed on the balance of probabilities to demonstrate an imminent or immediate landslide risk likely to cause imminent loss to the estate and the proposed sale by auction was not shown to be a necessary or effective preservation measure; the application for administrators pendent lite was dismissed because applicants did not show appointment was necessary or expedient given the estate circumstances, there was no evidence of dissipation, and the executor offered an undertaking not to deal with estate assets.
18 Feb 2016

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCEA25/2013

The court dismissed the ACB application because the applicant failed on the balance of probabilities to prove an immediate or imminent landslide risk that would justify urgent preservation by sale, and dismissed the application for administrators pendent lite because the respondents did not establish that appointment was necessary or expedient given the absence of dissipation, the executor's undertaking not to deal with assets, and unproven allegations of partiality.
14 Sept 2015

RE OUNG CHIN LIANG FUNG

Citation

RE OUNG CHIN LIANG FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2347/2015

The application for a grant ad colligenda bona was refused because the applicant failed to justify urgent ex parte relief: key factors included the presence of competing BVI proceedings and the fact that the assets are BVI company shares, the applicant's delay and inadequate explanation for urgency, insufficient evidence that the proposed sale was at undervalue, inadequate notice to beneficiaries, and real risk of prejudice to the listed company and its creditors; therefore the court would not displace the statutory entitlement to representation or grant emergency administrators in Hong Kong…
13 Mar 2014

YEUNG YUEN KING v. KONG WAI HA AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG YUEN KING v. KONG WAI HA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP19/2010

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the handwritten diary pages embodied the deceased's testamentary intentions and thus constituted a valid will under s5(2) of the Wills Ordinance; the conditional statement preserving rights of the father and son to object did not amount to giving them a posthumous power to revoke; there was insufficient evidence of undue influence; because the son was a minor there should be a co-administrator appointed alongside the plaintiff.
14 Jan 2014

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1377/2009

The Court concluded that section 213(2)(b) authorises orders to restore parties to their prior financial position and is not limited to restitution in specie; accordingly an order under s213(2)(b) as sought (payment to compensate counterparties and appointment of administrators) was appropriate and will be made subject to amendments discussed with counsel.