Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dividends

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2025

LAM YAN YEE AND ANOTHER v. THIS THIS RICE (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1378
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1979/2024

The plaintiffs' asserted purpose to verify whether dividends are payable under the shareholders agreement is a proper purpose under section 740; while audited financial statements and management accounts would normally suffice, the absence of verified audited accounts and evidence of suspicious conduct by defendants justifies a wider investigatory inspection, subject to the principle that only subsidiary records in the company's possession or to which the company is legally entitled fall within section 740.
20 Sept 2024

KIM SEUNG YOUNG v. WEINA HONGKONG CO LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1478/2023

The court found the plaintiff a member for present purposes, was satisfied the application under s740 was made in good faith and for a proper purpose (to protect economic interests and investigate alleged unauthorised dividend payments), and ordered inspection of documents of Weina SH in the Defendant's possession relevant to distribution of dividends from 1 January 2020 to date; costs ordered nisi to the plaintiff.
29 Jan 2024

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

Given the plaintiff's default judgment, evidence that the Company and its distribution arrangement are assets of the 1st Defendant and that a charging order alone would likely be ineffective to secure future dividend receipts, the court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to receive current and future dividends and related payments in respect of the 1st Defendant's shareholding, as specified in the revised draft order.
22 Jul 2022

RICHARD PAUL MARK AIDAN FORLEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1098
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV453/2021

The court held the EVA share awards were perquisites that accrued to the taxpayer on the award dates because the taxpayer acquired vested beneficial rights (held via a nominee) capable of being turned to pecuniary account despite retention, forfeiture and clawback features; the awards derived from the taxpayer's UK employment and therefore were not income from his Hong Kong employment, and the Board erred in treating accrual as occurring only on the Release Dates.
20 May 2019

ACUTE RESULT HOLDINGS LTD v. LIONCAP GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA820/2018

The court held that the pleaded misrepresentation as to defendants' present intention entitled the plaintiff to rescind the relevant agreements unless barred; the prior default judgment did not amount to an unequivocal election and could be set aside to the extent necessary; accordingly default judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the misrepresentation/rescission basis and equitable restitutionary relief (return of shares, dividends and interest) was ordered with reciprocal return of loan moneys by the plaintiff.
2 Nov 2017

PEACE MARK (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHAM WONG PATRICK AND OTHERS

Citation

PEACE MARK (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHAM WONG PATRICK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2371/2009

Court directed that single joint experts be instructed for both forensic accounting and Bermudan law because SJE promotes impartiality, cost-effectiveness and better assistance to the court; forensic expert must verify Liquidators' findings (not merely opine on methodology); issues for experts must be narrowly and precisely formulated and parties must attempt agreement or justify disagreement to the court.
27 Apr 2017

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV54/2016

Leave to appeal was granted because the two formulated questions concerning the lawfulness of including projected notional tax and dividends in the OFCA/OFTA Trading Fund budget and the permissibility of making such provisions pursuant to the Trading Funds Ordinance raise questions of great general or public importance warranting appellate determination.
3 Mar 2015

HUANG CHUN JEN JERRY v. HECNY SHIPPING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUANG CHUN JEN JERRY v. HECNY SHIPPING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP996/2013

Allow minor corrective amendments and paragraph 50A; allow claim for incentive payment after termination only insofar as calculated by reference to the net profit after tax of the 1st plaintiff (Hecny Shipping Limited); refuse amendments seeking entitlement calculated by reference to net profits of other companies because the pleaded material lacks necessary factual particulars to support construction or estoppel by convention (including absence of pleaded detrimental reliance); dismiss the production summons as documents sought are not relevant in light of the permitted amendments; make cost…
22 Sept 2010

PENG HUI ZHOU v. HONG KONG TACHIBANA ELECTRONICS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PENG HUI ZHOU v. HONG KONG TACHIBANA ELECTRONICS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2008

The court rejected the petitioner's factual case that there was an agreement to remunerate him by dividends and that a quasi‑partnership existed; the shares were given as a customary recognition at par pursuant to Japanese practice and no enforceable expectation to dividends or management rights was proven; therefore the conduct complained of was not unfairly prejudicial under s168A and the petition was dismissed.
29 Jul 2009

WONG TO YICK v. WONG TIN CHEE TINLY AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG TO YICK v. WONG TIN CHEE TINLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV364/2007

The trial judge's finding that the 1996 allotment arose from a family consensus (common intention) rather than any fraudulent misrepresentation was supported by the evidence; consequently no resulting trust arose and there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to disturb the factual findings, so the appeal was dismissed.