Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Director's duties

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

JULIAN TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD v. MANWAY TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 163
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6201/2024

The interim Mareva injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried against the 2nd defendant on the pleaded unlawful means claim and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation; the court emphasised deference to directors' business judgments and the protection of separate legal personality, and found the timing and registration of the sale lawful under the Land Registration Ordinance.
16 Aug 2018

TSE FUNG CHIU v. KWOK CHEUNG HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2066/2016

Because the failure and delay in convening the AGM and producing audited accounts arose from the conduct and records of the company rather than solely from one party, it is equitable to order that the company (2nd respondent) pay the costs of both the applicant and the 1st respondent, including a certificate for counsel.
26 May 2017

WEALTHY CATERING HOLDINGS LTD v. SUPERIOR LUCK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WEALTHY CATERING HOLDINGS LTD v. SUPERIOR LUCK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5628/2015

The summons was dismissed because (a) if the documents were unauthentic Order 38 r21 would not apply; the 1st defendant abandoned its authenticity challenge by accepting the documents were made by Appreciate and AWE, and (b) even on that basis the 1st defendant failed to show a satisfactory reason to order cross-examination of the makers — mere relevance was insufficient and the applicant, having put forward positive cases, must adduce evidence at trial; therefore the court exercised its discretion against the applicant.
23 Dec 2016

CHU KONG v. UP PROFIT LTD

Citation

CHU KONG v. UP PROFIT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP305/2016

Leave to commence the statutory derivative action was granted because the applicant established a serious issue to be tried and it is in the company's interests to allow the claim; the nominee director and resulting trust arguments did not dispose of the claim at the leave stage given the low threshold and issues of fact; indemnity in the nominee agreement is likely not to protect conduct in breach of law or fiduciary duty; service may be dispensed with under section 733(5).
30 Mar 2016

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2302/2014

On the interlocutory record the plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried that they are prima facie the owners of the two sums transferred; given the sums remain in UBS related accounts and absent convincing proof that injunction would catastrophically harm Mainland companies, equity requires preservation of those sums pending trial; plaintiffs provided undertakings (including by a related beneficiary) and disclosure from UBS should be ordered via a Bankers Trust order; accordingly proprietary injunctions and a Bankers Trust order were granted and costs ordered nisi.
11 Mar 2016

CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUNG PUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1439/2012

The court allowed the contested expert evidence on paragraph 1(b) but constrained its scope to include both parties' proposed issues, ordered a sequential exchange of expert reports (plaintiffs first, defendants in response, plaintiffs reply) with 42-day intervals, disallowed affidavit preparation costs, and assessed the costs of the application at HKD 140,000 to be in the cause.
24 Sept 2010

SUPER KEEP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG KWOK WA AND OTHERS

Citation

SUPER KEEP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG KWOK WA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1760/2009

There is no arguable ground of appeal as to the orders relating to the 1st Land and 1st Houses and the associated strike out/summary judgment conclusions; the 2nd to 7th defendants are entitled to the 1st Land and 1st Houses (and have undertaken to vest title in the Tso), the 8th to 18th defendants are mere bare trustees of the 2nd Land and 2nd Houses, proposed amendments that seek to impose personal liability on the 2nd to 18th defendants or recast agency were disallowed, and the application for stay of execution was dismissed (temporary extension of stay granted by undertaking until Court o…
20 Jul 2009

HONG KONG CENTURY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HUI NEI NA

Citation

HONG KONG CENTURY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HUI NEI NA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2284/2008

The court held that certain pleaded paragraphs disclosed no reasonable defence and were irrelevant to the narrow reliefs sought; specifically, personal shareholders' agreements or understandings cannot in law set aside a company board removal resolution, allegations concerning justification for consenting to the auction were irrelevant where plaintiff sought only an account of proceeds, and several paragraphs were unconnected to the validity of the removal resolution or the injunction claims. Accordingly the court struck out specified paragraphs of the Amended Defence but refused to strike ou…
22 Aug 2005

HO SHUK CHING PORTIA v. WONG MEI CHU AND OTHERS

Citation

HO SHUK CHING PORTIA v. WONG MEI CHU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1213/2003

Costs incurred before 31 January 2005 formed part of the re-amended application for delivery up/inspection because both sides relied on that evidence at the hearing; accordingly the 1st and 2nd defendants are entitled to a final costs order covering those costs. Immediate taxation and payment was refused because the plaintiff obtained an undertaking and the application was not wholly without merit; the court was not satisfied there was a high risk of injustice requiring costs to be paid forthwith.
1 Apr 2003

PENROSE INDUSTRIES LTD v. TAM YAN LUNG

Citation

PENROSE INDUSTRIES LTD v. TAM YAN LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5783/2000

The court found on the totality of the evidence that the defendant, without authority, diverted payments due to the company and failed to account for them; the defendant's documentary evidence was unconvincing and he gave no oral evidence, therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$1,407,392.15 with interest and costs; stakeheld funds of HK$212,936.32 were ordered released to satisfy the judgment debt.