Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Holding out

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

The application for a certificate was refused because the contested questions were either settled points of law by authority (so not novel questions of great and general importance) or were challenges to factual findings of the magistrate rather than genuine questions of law; accordingly no certification under s32(2) Cap 484 was warranted.
2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA288/2015

The magistrate's acquittal was a fact‑based conclusion on whether R1 'carried on' a business; Fung Yee Man is fact‑sensitive and not per incuriam; carrying on a business under s114 is a question of fact and degree and the magistrate's finding that services were isolated 'bits and pieces' was not so perverse that no reasonable tribunal could have reached it; therefore no error of law was made and the magistrate's decision is upheld.
2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

The magistrate's factual finding that R1's activities were isolated 'bits and pieces' and not a business carried on in advising on corporate finance was open on the evidence and not perverse; Fung Yee Man is fact‑sensitive and not per incuriam; carrying on a business under s114 is a question of fact and degree; appeal dismissed.
2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

Section 114(1)(b) is a regulatory offence in which the presumption of mens rea is displaced; the offence is constituted by the act of holding out unless a reasonable excuse is established; on the facts the agreements and conduct established A1 held itself out as carrying on corporate finance advisory services and A2, as directing mind of A1, was properly convicted under s390; the magistrate’s factual findings were not perverse and the appeals are dismissed.
9 Jun 2005

ALL LINK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HA KAI CHEONG, ANDREW AND OTHERS

Citation

ALL LINK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HA KAI CHEONG, ANDREW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA756/2002

Although the 2nd defendant was not a true/equity partner on the facts, he had represented and knowingly allowed himself to be held out as a partner to the plaintiff and the plaintiff relied on that representation in entrusting the $3,000,000; independently, as the handling solicitor he breached his contractual and tortious duties by failing to ensure stamping/registration and to supervise the handling of client funds; therefore he is liable to account and to return the trust money (subject to credit for the dividend) and to pay interest and costs.
30 Jun 2004

ATAL ENGINEERING LTD v. EVERGREEN ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

ATAL ENGINEERING LTD v. EVERGREEN ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ10712/2001

Because the Defendant provided its letterhead and company chop and allowed Wo Fung to hold itself out as the Defendant, the Plaintiffs reasonably believed they contracted with the Defendant; the Defendant is therefore bound as principal and must pay the outstanding sum of $128,000 plus prescribed interest and costs.
19 Apr 2002

JIANGMEN CHAO CHENG THREAD CO. LTD. v. NG SIU LUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

JIANGMEN CHAO CHENG THREAD CO. LTD. v. NG SIU LUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA219/2000

The judge found the evidence of holding out by Ms Lau was not credible and preferred the evidence of Ms Lau and her son; the Confirmation Note and other documents signed in managerial capacity did not establish partnership by holding out; Mr Ng admitted goods belonged to the Factory, so as the registered sole proprietor he was liable for the outstanding debt; the plaintiff's claim against Ms Lau was dismissed.
16 Nov 1999

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. MAN MEI WA POLLY

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. MAN MEI WA POLLY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7851/1999

Because the evidence established that Cheng Kwok Fai lacked authority to execute the sale agreements on behalf of the plaintiff and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not appointed solicitors or stakeholders for those transactions, the agreements are not binding on the plaintiff and are null and void; accordingly the defendants have no entitlement to register those agreements and the court will grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief and vacate registrations already effected.
9 Sept 1999

LON EAGLE INDUSTRIAL LTD. v. REALY TRADING CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

LON EAGLE INDUSTRIAL LTD. v. REALY TRADING CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14359/1997

Judge found on the facts that the plaintiff proved its claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants and entered judgment against them for the specified sums and interest; former partners Ip Lai Kuen and Kwong Kwok Choi were found not to be liable because the partnership had terminated earlier, there was no holding out or reliance by the plaintiff and they were not apparent members so no notice under s.38(1) was required, hence claim against them dismissed.
17 May 1991

EDMOND LABELS LTD. v. CAMTON (SPORTSWEAR) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

EDMOND LABELS LTD. v. CAMTON (SPORTSWEAR) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8252/1990

The claimant failed to prove that the 1st Defendant held out the 2nd Defendant as authorised to make the contract; although the 2nd Defendant had access and name cards, the claimant was put on inquiry by material facts (unsigned or unsigned as agent documents, delivery instructions to third parties, lack of returned confirmations) and therefore could not rely on apparent authority; accordingly the 1st Defendant is not liable for the contract purportedly made by the 2nd Defendant.