Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deceit (fraud)

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2105
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5985/2024

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy (and thus a potential constructive trust claim), they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction. Because the risk of dissipation requirement for continuation of a Mareva injunction was not satisfied, the summonses for continuation were dismissed.
17 Dec 2025

KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2105
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5984/2024

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy and pleaded a constructive trust claim contingent on deceit, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction; absent such risk the continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions could not be justified and the summonses for continuation were dismissed.
9 Jul 2020

800 COLUMBIA PROJECT COMPANY, LLC v. XIANG YANG LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA393/2020

Default judgment was appropriate because the defendants were validly served and did not appear; the plaintiff pleaded and established a particularised fraud and followed the defrauded sums into the hands of D2, D3 and D5, entitling the plaintiff to a proprietary remedy for the amounts received by those defendants and to damages for deceit and conspiracy in the total sum of US$5,697,724.42, together with interest and continuation of the injunction until payment.
10 Oct 2018

JOYTEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SUPER HOMES LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18/2012

On the facts the court accepted Joytex's evidence that SHL, through its sole sales agent Centaline and by statements made by the developer's legal clerk, made the Compliance Representations implying that an Open Kitchen Layout could and would be implemented with requisite approvals. Those representations were false because the Building Authority/Buildings Department had not approved the Open Kitchen Layout for the smaller units. Joytex relied on the representations and was induced to purchase; rescission of the PSPA and SPA was therefore granted. Fraud/deceit was not proved. Claim for lost pr…
22 Jan 2015

RAMUKA TRADING Pte LTD v. AVA FASHION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAMUKA TRADING Pte LTD v. AVA FASHION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ72/2015

The court granted interim proprietary and Mareva injunctions against the 1st and 3rd defendants because the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried in deceit, demonstrated that the sums had been remitted into accounts in the jurisdiction, proved a real risk of dissipation given the defendants' conduct and nominal share capital, and showed the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the funds with the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.

Hong Kong Case Law

KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

800 COLUMBIA PROJECT COMPANY, LLC v. XIANG YANG LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS

JOYTEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SUPER HOMES LTD

RAMUKA TRADING Pte LTD v. AVA FASHION LTD AND OTHERS