Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authority of solicitors

Legal area

Court

30 May 2024

SINO RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD v. KAN KWOK YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA276/2022

Court preferred contemporaneous documentary and solicitor evidence showing PCCW informed D1 and obtained instructions not to contest; therefore the judgment was regular and not a default judgment obtained without notice; D1 failed to discharge the burden of proving a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds about the debt (his hybrid loan‑investment story was unsupported, commercially implausible and contradicted by documents and conduct); accordingly the summons to set aside the judgment was dismissed and the bankruptcy petition succeeded leading to adjudication in bankruptcy.
20 Apr 2017

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA420/2011

The judge found CLCMC's conduct was not 'improper or unreasonable' within the high threshold for a wasted costs order: CLCMC acted on apparently regular documents and on advice of counsel, raised arguable legal points, and causation was lacking for certain costs (notably adjournment costs caused by the Trustees). Consequently a wasted costs order was refused; instead an order nisi was made allocating the costs of CLCMC's show-cause hearing to Listco and no order as between CLCMC/Listco and the Trustees.
11 Apr 2017

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/2016

The Court held that To J's decision involved final determinations of substantive issues (including that the share transfer to Rare Earth was a sham and Chung remained beneficial owner, sections 12 and 58 operated to vest interests in the trustees, and the solicitors lacked authority), therefore leave to appeal was not required; the appeal may only proceed if the proper appellant is before the court and, absent Huang applying to be substituted as appellant within 14 days, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
20 Feb 2017

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1564/2015

Given material indicating both the 1st defendant and a prima facie large number of plaintiffs opposed the proposed placement and having regard to the receivers' role as interim custodians to preserve the subject matter for those entitled, the court directed the receivers to seek a four‑week adjournment of the CSCG EGM to ascertain plaintiffs' positions and, if adjournment was not obtained, to vote against the resolutions; the court refused the 1st defendant's requested direction that the receivers abstain from voting.
31 Aug 2016

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA420/2011

The transfer to Rare Earth and subsequent appointments were a nominee/nominee‑trust arrangement keeping beneficial control with Chung; by operation of Bankruptcy Ordinance ss.12 and 58 Chung's beneficial interest and powers vested in the Official Receiver/trustees and Rare Earth/Mei Li (being complicit and having knowledge) could not validly exercise those powers or ratify solicitors without trustee/Official Receiver consent; therefore the resolutions appointing Huang and authorising DSC/CLCMC were invalid and the solicitors lacked authority, so the Authority Summons succeeds and the Leave to…
4 Jun 2014

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. TANG CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. TANG CHUNG WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2013

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants could not reopen the Entitlement Issue (the draft agreement was not admissible evidence of executed terms and could have been produced earlier) and the Authority Issue was already finally determined against them by earlier concurrent findings, so res judicata barred re-litigation and no triable issues existed to defeat summary judgment or the case management order.
8 Jun 2012

MOORES ROWLAND (A Firm) AND ANOTHER v. GRANT THORNTON (A Firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

MOORES ROWLAND (A Firm) AND ANOTHER v. GRANT THORNTON (A Firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA735/2010

The court is functus officio in relation to perfected consent orders and therefore will not set aside sealed consent orders in these interlocutory applications; even if jurisdiction existed the court should not exercise it before final determination of the internal dispute (HCA 1691/2011); accordingly the applications seeking declarations that the consent orders are null and void and restoration of proceedings are dismissed.
8 Jun 2012

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JBPB & CO (a partnership)

Citation

GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JBPB & CO (a partnership)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1284/2011

The Subject Applications were dismissed because the Consent Orders had been perfected and the court was functus officio; the correct remedy to challenge perfected consent orders is to bring a fresh action to set them aside, and even if residual jurisdiction existed the court should not exercise it before resolution of the Internal Dispute Action; additionally, granting the applications would unjustifiably prejudice other partners and third parties by frustrating a negotiated settlement where the minority offered no security or undertaking and had alternative remedies.
6 Jun 2012

KIM LUNG TRANSPORTATION CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. IP MAN FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

KIM LUNG TRANSPORTATION CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. IP MAN FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA271/2012

The Court struck out all claims by P1 and by P6 because the pleaded and evidenced wrongs post‑2010 related to the business and confidential information of P2 (and at most P4), not P1, and Tsang's alleged losses are reflective of company loss so he lacks standing; MPC's authority to act for P2–P5 was not proved and purported ratification at the EGM was invalid, but because defendants did not demonstrate reliance/inducement on any implied warranty of authority the Court declined to order MPC personally to pay wasted costs under the summary jurisdiction (while inviting consideration of an Order…
16 Apr 2012

TAIBAO INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. KARY ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAIBAO INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. KARY ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA642/2011

The June Order was a "no objection" consent order rather than a contractual compromise and therefore subject to court intervention; the Master erred in entering judgment under O 27 r 3 because the pleaded case did not include a claim for RMB8,000,000 against the 1st defendant nor an admission amounting to an admission of fact or part of the plaintiff's case against the 2nd defendant, so the judgment was improperly made and the June Order must be set aside; extension of time to appeal was granted and the January Order was also set aside.