Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dissolution of partnership

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2025

SHE SAU CHING, Administratrix of the Estate of FUNG SIU YING MICKY, Deceased v. FUNG SIU CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4724
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1796/2024

The court held that (1) New Chi Wing was dissolved on 7 March 2022 upon the death of the Deceased and granted a declaration accordingly; (2) the Defendant's pleaded admissions that the partnership existed, that he carried on the business post-dissolution using partnership assets, and his express acceptance in the Defence of the obligation to account were sufficient to justify an order for account and inquiry under Order 43, but there was no clear and unequivocal admission entitling the Court to enter judgment that the Estate is entitled to a 50% share under Order 27 r.3, so the claim for a de…
8 May 2025

LIN GUIFEI, as the administratrix of the estate of LEE KIN WAH, Deceased v. LUI CHUNG since Deceased, LUI PO KIN RICKY, appointed by an Order dated 28th March 2025 to represent the Estate of LUI CHUNG, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA596/2021

The court found the Last Partnership was dissolved on the Deceased's death; the Post-2017 Luen Fat carried on the business of the firm and at least some partnership assets (including unaccounted cash and unreconciled entitlements beyond the HK$312,696.20 cashier order) were utilised by the Defendants; the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving non-use of partnership assets; all statutory conditions in s44 were satisfied; therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to relief under s44 and the court ordered taking of partnership account, inquiries and tracing and found misappropriation of…
7 Feb 2023

CHEUNG HAU CHUN v. TO SUET CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1259/2015

Having accepted the audited financial statements as correctly reflecting Tai Dou's (the Partnership's) financial position, the court calculated net assets as at 31 March 2013, deducted apportioned profits attributable to the period after the plaintiff ceased to be a partner, computed net assets as at 15 August 2012, awarded the plaintiff 25% of that sum ($1,879,791.91), ordered interest from 9 June 2015 at HSBC prime +1% to the date of judgment and judgment rate thereafter, and ordered the 1st‑3rd Defendants to pay the costs of the summons assessed preliminarily at $45,000.
28 Nov 2022

CHOW KAM HUNG v. HOI KONG IRONWARES GODOWN CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1368
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5138/2019

The court found the ironmongery/stainless steel partnership was dissolved by agreement on 15 October 2004; no binding oral settlement of accounts was proved; plaintiff's claims for accounts and for profit sharing under the oral promise are governed by the Limitation Ordinance and, on the facts, are time-barred; although 'net profits' would include rental income and the oral promise was supported by consideration, limitation extinguished the actionable claims.
28 Nov 2022

CHOW KAM HUNG v. WONG KIU, person appointed to represent the estate of NG WAI KWONG, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1368
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5127/2019

The court held that the ironmongery/stainless steel partnership was dissolved on 15 October 2004; there was no proved agreement that the HK$300,000 capital bore interest; no binding oral settlement agreement on accounts was proved; the plaintiff’s claim for an account (and Hoi Kong’s counterclaim) was time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance; the oral promise did include rental income as part of 'net profits' but the claim based on that promise was time‑barred; the oral promise was supported by consideration (plaintiff stayed in the business) but limitation defeated recovery.
16 Sept 2022

CHEUNG HAU CHUN v. TO SUET CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1259/2015

With no admissible primary evidence other than the audited financial statements, the proper course was to take the accounts and make inquiries by reference to those audited accounts; without apportionable data the court could not ascertain dealings for partial reporting periods nor find that the 4th defendant received partnership sums; costs were awarded to the plaintiff for the accounts and inquiries except the costs of the excluded expert report.
2 Feb 2021

CHEUNG HAU CHUN v. TO SUET CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 264
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1259/2015

The Court held the written partnership agreement and power of attorney, executed before solicitors and relied upon by contemporaneous conduct, established a partnership between plaintiff and D1–D3 with plaintiff holding 25% in his own right; plaintiff retired on 15 August 2012 and the partnership dissolved that day; plaintiff was not entitled to an immediate return of HK$2,025,000 but was entitled to orders for accounts and inquiries for the period 23 August 2010 to 15 August 2012 and the attorney (D4) was ordered to provide an account; the defendants' counterclaim alleging plaintiff held his…
26 Jul 2018

陳培光對薛玉貞及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 739
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4625/2015

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because (1) in absence of any agreement to the contrary the partnership assets are to be shared equally on dissolution; (2) the credible accountant evidence and the final accounts established that the plaintiff had been repaid his capital by 1999; (3) the plaintiff may not raise substantial unpleaded claims for suspicious expenditures at trial; and (4) defendants were entitled to rely on estoppel/waiver by plaintiff's conduct and the accounts provided, so defendants supplied true and correct accounts and no further relief was due to plaintiff.
29 Jan 2018

RE FOOK HAU TRADING COMPANY (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6222/2016

The debtor failed to establish an estoppel because it did not comply with the alleged considerations (notably it did not vacate all five properties within the required short time and actively participated in sale of the fifth property), and its account is contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct (facility letters, demand letters, statutory demands, surrender letters and correspondence). Therefore there is no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds and the bankruptcy petition must succeed.
4 Jan 2018

LI MEI CHUN EVA v. NG LAI YIN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 4
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3355/2015

The WhatsApp message sent by the Defendant on 20 May 2015 was a clear and unambiguous effective notice of dissolution communicated to the Plaintiff and thereby dissolved the partnership as of that date; the sums the Plaintiff advanced (including the HK$100,000 element) constituted capital contribution not a loan; the Defendant must render accounts as at commencement (21 April 2015) and as at dissolution (20 May 2015) and pay any amounts found due; the Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.