Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent disposition

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2025

CHUNG YING BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LTD (in Liquidation) v. CHOW WAI LAM, WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA656/2019

Applications for security for costs were dismissed. The court found defendants had been substantially and inexcusably delayed in seeking security notwithstanding knowledge of the plaintiff's liquidation; the delay caused serious prejudice by risking abandonment of a public‑funded claim and imposing excessive security (HK$8,000,000) disproportionate to the plaintiff's HK$6,376,000 claim; explanations (change of liquidators, mediation, expectations of discontinuance) were irrational or unsubstantiated and did not justify the lateness; therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse relie…
7 Mar 2025

深圳澳銀天使創業投資企業 (有限合伙) AND ANOTHER v. LIU XIAOLONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 959
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1801/2023

Court found plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation by the 1st and 2nd defendants; continued and granted a Mareva injunction against the 1st defendant up to RMB 11,897,850.91; refused to vary the Mareva injunction to permit maintenance payments absent cogent evidence; granted a Chabra injunction against the 2nd defendant limited to the 1st defendant's half share of the property with specified relaxations (rental income allowed) and procedural steps to agree final wording; dismissed the 2nd defendant's summons and made costs orders on a nisi basis.
21 Jan 2022

RICK COWLEY and WONG WING SZE TIFFANY (JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF LAU YU ALSO KNOWN AS JAFFE LAU v. ALL POWERFUL HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2289/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the defendants, having sought and then withdrawn permission to adduce supplemental expert evidence, cannot rely on the same late-discovered documents via a supplemental list; permitting them would be an abuse of process, would prejudice the plaintiff by denying their expert the opportunity to consider the documents, and would cause unjustified delay; the defendants' unexplained late discovery and unsupported explanations (eg alleged injunction) do not cure the prejudice.
28 Dec 2018

LI PING CHUN AND ANOTHER v. LIANG TONGHUA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2239/2017

The court found the plaintiffs had a good arguable proprietary claim under s60 CPO because the timing and terms of the assignments to HW and KW were suspicious, went beyond the pleaded claims in earlier proceedings, involved nil consideration and occurred after judgment and interim orders; therefore the interim Mareva injunction and asset preservation order should continue to preserve assets pending determination, but the injunctions against HW and KW must be limited to restraint of dealing with the two Properties; asset disclosure should be ordered against TH only.
26 Nov 2018

LAU HAK SHING v. CHAN KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1448
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3758/2015

District Court has jurisdiction under s36 DCO; the plaintiff's pleaded facts sufficiently particularise an intent to defraud under s60 and arguably fall within the Freeman v Pope rule; limitation issues under s4(4) cannot be resolved on strike out because s26(1) fraud discovery may extend time and factual inquiries are required; accordingly the striking out application is dismissed and amendment allowed.
16 Nov 2018

RE LAU YU also known as JAFFE LAU

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2542
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB104/2017

Leave to appeal refused because the deputy judge did not err in law or principle: he identified a lawful process (winding up by the trustee/shareholder if the transfer is reversed) satisfying the second limb of Chabra; he made findings of real risk of dissipation and abuse of corporate arrangements; and he properly exercised discretion in accepting a limited cross-undertaking of HK$40,000,000 and in making disclosure and costs orders, such that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
29 Jul 2016

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. LAM YING LUNG, ALAN

Citation

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. LAM YING LUNG, ALAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA653/2011

On the balance of the contemporaneous documents, pattern of family payments, tax returns, and surrounding circumstances the Judge found the Father intended in October 1996 to make a gift of the property to the Bankrupt or to benefit the Bankrupt (so the Bankrupt was the beneficial owner). Accordingly the Declaration of Trust (29 May 2009) and Vesting Assignment (1 Dec 2009) were transactions at an undervalue and/or unfair preferences and/or voidable dispositions under s60 CPO. The court exercised its wide remedial discretion under ss49(2),50(2) and 51A(1) BO to vest the property in the Truste…
19 May 2016

GOLDFAME CONSULTANTS LTD v. TSE SAI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOLDFAME CONSULTANTS LTD v. TSE SAI MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1065/2011

Plaintiff's unregistered trust/deeds did not defeat the registered title of a bona fide purchaser; on the facts there was no sufficient evidence to infer intent to defraud or that the sale was at an undervalue under s60 CPO; therefore the claim against the 2nd defendant fails, but the estate (1st defendant as administrator) breached the SPA and must return the purchase money to plaintiff with simple interest.
29 May 2012

DRANSFIELD HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. PEARL ORIENTAL OIL LTD

Citation

DRANSFIELD HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. PEARL ORIENTAL OIL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1392/2011

The amended statement of claim was struck out and the action dismissed. The court held there was no sustainable cause of action against the defendant under s.60 CPO because the disposition was to its separate wholly owned subsidiary POLH, POLH was not shown to be a sham or mere cloak and there was no basis to lift the corporate veil. The plaintiff’s claim amounted to reflective loss and was unsustainable. The s.266 Companies Ordinance claim likewise had no merit because the transferor was V1988 (not DH), POLH was not a creditor or associate of DH and the statutory periods did not capture the…
2 Mar 2012

RE ANGEL WISE LTD

Citation

RE ANGEL WISE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW58/2012

The New Shares derived from Angel Wise's FabWay shareholding and therefore fell within the Share Charge Agreement's definition of Related Assets; an equitable charge attached in favour of Stark Moly on allotment, entitling Stark Moly to a declaration and to have the charging order nisi made absolute; a stay was properly refused because Stark Moly is enforcing a proprietary right as a secured creditor and Hong Kong is the appropriate forum to determine the proprietary effect of the charge.