Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud allegations

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2024

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL2/2016

Applications for security for costs were allowed because the plaintiffs, who are overseas and in liquidation, failed to demonstrate the very high threshold of a high degree of probability of success; the handwriting expert reports and CCTV recordings did not clearly or self-evidently undermine the judgments or satisfy the threshold; security was fixed at HK$750,000 for each application and costs were awarded against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel.
7 Jun 2024

MINTING DOME HOLDING LLC v. DENG JIE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1202/2023

Interpreting the exclusive jurisdiction clause by applying PRC Civil Code art.142 and considering related clauses (including the entire agreement clause), the phrase covers disputes 'arising out of and in connection with' the Settlement Agreement; the Present Causes of Action fall within that scope. No strong cause was shown to refuse a stay (fraud allegations did not directly impeach the jurisdiction clause; multiplicity risk was minimal; uncertainty about PRC recognition of crypto-assets was not decisive). Accordingly, the application to set aside leave was dismissed and a permanent stay of…
29 Mar 2023

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN WAI TONG CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 461
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2021

The Payments Claim alleging that administrators inflated fees by 10% to pay the 4th defendant was plain and obvious as impossible to succeed given the complete lack of factual foundation; the judge properly struck out that claim and refused late further evidence; the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal raises no question of great general or public importance and is refused with costs.
16 Sept 2019

CHAN KWOK KUEN v. ACTIONSPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1205
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1985/2013

The defendant's persistent, unsupported and in some respects contradictory allegations of fraud and its oppressive communications justified an order for costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis; however the plaintiff's two settlement letters did not strictly comply with Order 22 r 5 and therefore were not sanctioned offers under Order 22 and could not attract the enhanced costs or interest consequences of Order 22 r 24; accordingly the court awarded standard statutory interest rates and indemnity costs for the whole action and made an order nisi regarding interest-and-costs-related costs on a…
8 Sept 2017

N v. W

Citation

N v. W
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5026/2015

The court granted the transfer of the s17 application to the Court of First Instance because the matter raised substantial points of law (notably ex turpi causa in light of Patel v Mirza), involved allegations of fraud and other civil/criminal ramifications, potentially required expert evidence, and concerned a significant quantum (circa US$18 million); accordingly the High Court is a more appropriate forum. Costs were ordered to follow the event on a party and party basis, taxed if not agreed.
3 Feb 2017

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA) CORP LTD v. SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK CO LTD

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA) CORP LTD v. SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV14/2016

The Court of Appeal held the Judge correctly exercised discretion to stay the Hong Kong proceedings because the Jiangsu Mainland proceedings, already advanced and addressing the same factual core (allegations of fraud and the question whether the plaintiff negotiated in good faith), have the most real and substantial connection to the dispute; key performance obligations, presentation of documents and central witnesses and evidence are in Jiangsu; the stay was appropriate but should be temporary until determination of the Higher Court appeal or further order, with costs to the defendant.
19 Aug 2014

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD – [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD

Citation

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD – [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1503/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge below exercised legitimate case management in striking out the Reply Affirmation save for Exhibit 3 which bore direct relevance to economic duress; the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or that it was denied a fair opportunity to present its case, and the Court of Appeal would also refuse leave on the separate ground that the plaintiff company was unrepresented without a representation order; the court further invoked Order 59, rule 2A(8) to bar an oral reconsideration application.
7 Aug 2013

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD

Citation

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP717/2006

The court found on the facts that the petitioner knowingly advanced numerous untrue, speculative or unsupported allegations, cynically used procedural mechanisms (including striking a deed under the Stamp Duty Ordinance) to deprive opponents of evidence and then made grave fraud and misappropriation allegations; that conduct amounted to an affront to the court and justified an order that the petitioner pay costs on an indemnity basis, notwithstanding allegations of respondent misconduct.
7 Aug 2013

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP875/2010

The petitioner knowingly advanced numerous false, speculative and unsupported allegations, including grave accusations of fraud and misappropriation, and cynically used procedural mechanisms to deprive the respondent of evidence; that conduct constituted an affront to the court and justified ordering the petitioner to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Alleged respondent misconduct did not justify denying indemnity costs.
31 Mar 2010

TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LTD v. JOHN HO AND OTHERS

Citation

TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LTD v. JOHN HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2010

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the court concluded the defendants had a real and arguable appeal with reasonable prospects, and ordering security would likely be impossible to meet and would stifle the appeal and cause irreparable prejudice (including likely bankruptcy), so preservation orders were made to allow the appeal to proceed.