Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Escrow

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2023

ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS AND ANOTHER v. NEW RUI INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3062
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA654/2023

On the facts the Defendant, by its correspondence and conduct (notably the 8 November 2022 letter and the 16 January 2023 position reinforced by letters of 1 and 16 February 2023 and its attempts to work out remedial plans with DLO), acted inconsistently with an intention to rescind and thereby unequivocally affirmed the SPA; rescission is therefore not a triable issue and the $10 million tax retention sum held in escrow is to be released to the Plaintiffs; set-off was not pleaded and damages are indeterminate so no stay pending trial was justified.
30 Oct 2019

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO - TIANDE GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The court granted the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff established a good arguable case on its primary monetary claims, there are assets within Hong Kong (the Escrow Fund), and on the balance of the evidence including the defendants' obstructive conduct in the BVI proceedings and liquidators' concerns about distributions, there is a real risk that refusal would permit unjustified dissipation of highly liquid escrowed assets; balance of convenience favoured maintaining the agreed escrow, the plaintiff provided undertakings as to damages, and fortification was refused for lack of substan…
17 May 2019

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

On the balance of probabilities the loan was advanced to D2 and D3 (not D1); the Plaintiff failed to prove creation of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds; the Plaintiff must return the title deeds to D1 as owner; the Legal Charge was voidable for solicitor's breach (abuse of confidence/material alteration) but rescission was refused on the facts; accordingly Plaintiff's claim against D1 is dismissed, D1's counterclaim for return of title deeds is allowed and D2/D3 counterclaim is dismissed.
14 Sept 2018

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. HO YUK WAH DAVID (a bankrupt) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 604
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP114/2018

The Court refused leave to appeal because the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it: the judge was entitled to find a serious issue to be tried on beneficial ownership and a proprietary claim over the DFIL shares and their sale proceeds, and his regranting of the interlocutory injunction was within the generous ambit of lawful discretion and not plainly wrong.
9 Feb 2018

CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD v. ZHANG JIE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2249/2016

Marvel Skill's application was dismissed because it lacked the necessary urgency and proper procedural standing to compel release: the contractual obligations were owed to the Vendor (not a party), there was no evidence the Vendor had demanded release, the applicant declined the practical protective measure of depositing the escrow documents into court, and the Mareva injunction covered the assets in question; accordingly variation was unjustified and no costs were awarded.
11 Dec 2017

CHINA LIFE INSURANCE (OVERSEAS) CO LTD v. LI XIAOMING

Citation

CHINA LIFE INSURANCE (OVERSEAS) CO LTD v. LI XIAOMING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA570/2017

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the 2011 SPA and the 2011 Side Deed because the defendant failed to establish any credible triable defence: the penalty interest point was unsupported by evidence, the counterclaim/set-off was unquantified and speculative, and the alleged oral collateral agreement was implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents. The claim under the 2016 Deed was refused summary judgment and ordered to trial because the timing and exercisability of the option raised unresolved legal and factual issues requiring full hearing.
13 Aug 2015

LEE SING LEUNG ROBIN v. LUK WING KWONG QUINTIN

Citation

LEE SING LEUNG ROBIN v. LUK WING KWONG QUINTIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1890/2010

The claimant failed to prove that the 340 million shares were security, failed to prove Luk breached by not advancing $3m, the parties reached a global settlement in August 2010 which disposed of the claims, Lee waived rights to dispute Luk's exercise of the Loan Documentation, and there was no proven breach of fiduciary duty or evidentiary basis for damages of HK$88,317,369.90; accordingly the claims are dismissed.
23 Jun 2011

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA907/2011

The court granted/continued the interim injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient merits and, given the defendants' refusal to disclose transactional details, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo; fortification of the cross-undertaking was unnecessary because funds were deposited in escrow; the 1st defendant's payment-into-court application was dismissed as unnecessary.
18 Mar 2011

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES FAR EAST LTD v. GST INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES FAR EAST LTD v. GST INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2010

The court continued the Mareva injunction because there was sufficient risk and it would be inappropriate at interlocutory stage to discharge an order that would decide a principal trial issue; the court permitted variation to give effect to the Deed of Settlement and allow payment out of escrow because objections based on speculative contribution claims were insufficient to deny the settlement effect and would amount to an improper reverse Mareva; the exercise of discretion favoured preserving security while allowing the agreed settlement distribution.
26 Nov 2010

LU MING HUI v. HO YU KUEN

Citation

LU MING HUI v. HO YU KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2010

The court held that the promissory note and sale agreement were genuine and enforceable; the defendant's defences that the documents were sham or that the claim was discharged were contradicted by contemporaneous documents and were inherently unbelievable; accordingly summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.