Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud allegation

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2024

HANG YICK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD v. ALBERT FUNG CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 983
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW367/2022

The petition succeeds: the Company failed to comply with a statutory demand based on a final arbitral award and did not establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or demonstrate fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice sufficient to go behind the awards; procedural objections were without merit or merely irregular and did not prejudice the Company; therefore a winding up order is appropriate and costs are ordered against the opposing contributory.
30 Jun 2022

WEST KOWLOON CULTURAL DISTRICT AUTHORITY v. AIG INSURANCE HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 975
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2020

The 1st Demand was invalid because, on proper construction, it included reference to future damages and losses not yet suffered and therefore the Bonded Sum as demanded did not fall within Clause 2 which permits demands only in respect of damages and losses already sustained; the judge below erred in treating the reference to future losses as surplusage and in holding the demand valid.
4 Mar 2021

葉國林對謝思樂

Citation

[2021] HKDC 229
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ669/2020

The defendant failed to raise any legally viable or credible triable issue: the loan agreement was signed by him in his personal capacity, there was no evidence that Foot Station Limited was the contracting party or had authorized him to act for the company, and the fraud allegation was unparticularized and unsupported; therefore summary judgment stands and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 2019

CHAN KWOK KUEN v. ACTIONSPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 543
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1985/2013

The employer was liable because the task of manually moving a 220 kg barrel up a makeshift ramp was a dangerous, non-trivial operation; the plaintiff was required to and did perform physical work despite being inexperienced and of slight build; the defendant failed to provide adequate supervision, instruction and safe systems and is vicariously liable for the foreman who allowed the plaintiff to participate; the plaintiff's evidence was preferred and fraud allegations were unsupported; judge awarded damages accordingly.
23 Mar 2018

(彭祖添的遺產管理人) 彭少娟對醫院管理局及另七人

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 554
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1140/2017

The court struck out the plaintiff's claims against all defendants because the claims either failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were plainly frivolous or an abuse of process, or were time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap.347); s26(1) did not assist because there was no evidence of deliberate concealment or fraud by defendants and the matters had already been finally adjudicated in earlier proceedings, so res judicata/issue estoppel applied.
28 Sept 2017

ACROPOLIS LIMITED suing on behalf of itself and all other shareholders in AESO HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ACROPOLIS LIMITED suing on behalf of itself and all other shareholders in AESO HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1496/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the judge correctly found a serious issue to be tried and appropriately assessed inadequacy of damages and balance of convenience in the context of a derivative action alleging potential fraud against the company and shareholders.
15 Nov 2016

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ398/2014

The court found the 1st and 2nd defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success such that the default judgment should be set aside; consequentially the charging order nisi and absolute, their registration, the order for possession and the writ of possession were discharged and set aside; defendants granted leave to file a Defence and costs awarded to the plaintiff in any event with taxation directions for certain costs.
27 Sept 2016

YINGGAO RESOURCES LTD v. ECO METAL (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YINGGAO RESOURCES LTD v. ECO METAL (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA964/2012

The judge held that the plaintiff validly succeeded on misrepresentation and negligence but that the fraud and s3 Misrepresentation Ordinance pleas were unarguable and unreasonable; having considered proportionality and conduct, the proper reduction was 50%, and the 2nd defendant was ordered to pay 50% of the costs of the appeal and the application to the Master, while costs of the amendment (excluding appeal) were to be paid to the defendants and specific procedural orders were made granting leave to amend and dispensing with service.
23 Sept 2015

盧喜來對香港政府

Citation

盧喜來對香港政府
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA44/2014

The court struck out the claim because the plaintiff re-litigated the same facts and allegations that were previously considered and rejected in earlier proceedings; no new material justified reopening the issue; the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process and vexatious; limitation and prior factual findings barred the claim; costs follow the result.
18 Mar 2015

LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. WORLD EAST ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. WORLD EAST ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP396/2014

The court held the mortgage was valid and enforceable: Wan's allegations of fraud and non est factum were unsubstantiated and contradicted by company records; Wan had no tenancy or unwritten equitable interest affecting the mortgage; shareholders have no proprietary interest in company property; the court exercised its discretion under MLO s22(2) to allow enforcement of the 4% monthly penalty interest; ordered payment of outstanding indebtedness with interest and delivery of vacant possession within 28 days; costs to plaintiff on the usual basis.