Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disgorgement

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2021

QNET LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG MAN YEE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2378/2018

The Defendant breached her contractual and fiduciary duties by forging signatures and entering unauthorised contracts, causing losses to the 3rd Plaintiff; the Court assessed and awarded compensatory damages of HK$1,910,202.51, awarded pre-judgment interest on two cheque payments at 1% above HSBC Best Lending Rate from 9 October 2018, post-judgment interest at judgment rate, and ordered payment of costs after 9 June 2020 summarily assessed at HK$230,000 with a certificate for counsel.
29 Mar 2021

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 727
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP208/2020

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Zhou deliberately failed to comply with the Account Order by not providing an account of all income (including salaries and carried interest) and thus is in contempt for failing to account; however the plaintiffs did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he failed to disclose the specific documentary packages alleged, so those disclosure charges were not made out; sentencing was adjourned.
28 Dec 2020

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 44
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2020

The ALPA created a fiduciary duty owed by Mr Zhou to SAIF and SAIF therefore had its own cause of action for an account of profits; the court has jurisdiction to order disgorgement to SAIF and the question whether SAIF must account to the Fund is a separate matter between SAIF and the Fund and does not defeat or affect Mr Zhou's liability to account to SAIF; the equitable rule requiring disgorgement is not compensatory and applies irrespective of loss.
30 Oct 2020

RAN MAOXIU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2410/2019

Leave to intervene was granted because the Actions 'concern' matters provided for in the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrated a functional interest and that intervention was in the public interest, the Financial Secretary had been consulted, and there were reasonable grounds to fear dissipation or collusive litigation warranting intervention and a stay pending investigation.
30 Oct 2020

LIANG YUYU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2411/2019

Intervention under s.385 SFO was permitted because the dishonest cheque actions concerned matters within the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrably had an interest by virtue of its functions, consultation with the Financial Secretary occurred, intervention was in the public interest to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds and to guard against collusive or inadequately defended litigation, and the court exercised its discretion to allow intervention and order a stay pending investigation.
14 Jul 2020

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 23
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV195/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant's legal propositions were not reasonably arguable: Sin Kam Wah principles apply to section 277 and there is no justification to adopt a different recklessness test for market misconduct; even if a more demanding subjective test were required the MMT found Mr Left subjectively appreciated the unreasonableness of his risk-taking; negligence remained a distinct and applicable basis for liability; unlicensed commentators are not presumptively immune; freedom of expression does not protect dissemination of reckless or negligent false market information.
26 Jun 2018

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

Because defendant 1 alone was entitled to any secret profit under the earlier judgment and because of the plaintiff's misleading account and limited discovery, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide a verified, document-supported account of all income and benefits from KPCB-CF and KV to 31 December 2012, required confidentiality undertakings from the defendants, and imposed detailed timetables and rights of inspection, objection, affidavit reply and cross-examination to permit a proper taking of the account.
14 Feb 2018

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P.AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

Clause 8 of the SA fixed plaintiff's final vested carried interest at 51.78% and prevented reduction; ALPA proviso (iv) requires a causal link so that ‘Termination with Cause’ means an involuntary termination for Cause and does not apply to consensual termination later followed by discovery of Cause; ‘policy’ in ALPA refers to an express written policy; non-disparagement clause targets reputational harm not ordinary operational or financial conduct; plaintiff breached fiduciary duties in relation to the Xinrui/Keygate dealings and must disgorge profit from that investment; other allegations o…
25 Jun 2015

ALLIED SUCCESS CREATION LTD v. CHEUNG HON KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

ALLIED SUCCESS CREATION LTD v. CHEUNG HON KUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA451/2010

Yeung succeeded and there was no proven pre-action or litigation conduct by her that fairly induced Allied Success to sue her; therefore she is entitled to her costs. Although adverse findings were made against the other defendants and disgorgement/compensation was awarded (including profit of HK$4,500,000 and market value based damages), those remedies restored Allied Success and, absent separate improper conduct in the litigation itself, do not justify an additional indemnity costs order. Accordingly the nisi costs order is made absolute and Allied Success must pay the costs of the variatio…
11 Dec 2013

GLORY WELL (HONG KONG) LTD t/a TOUR ENTERPRISE (HK) CO v. TAK CHEUNG-TOKUSHO TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

Citation

GLORY WELL (HONG KONG) LTD t/a TOUR ENTERPRISE (HK) CO v. TAK CHEUNG-TOKUSHO TRAVEL SERVICE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3514/2011

The court found Tour Enterprise was not an agent or fiduciary of Tak Cheung; commissions were by and large determined by Tour Enterprise under the classification evidence and not a fixed 1,000 JYP; claims by Tak Cheung for understated commissions, Levy and New Engagement profits failed; judgment entered for Tour Enterprise for the claimed debit note amounts with interest and costs nisi.