Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint venture

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

LUEN SHING STEEL IRON ENGINEERING WORKS LTD v. MAN YIP KAU

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1259
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2956/2018

On the balance of probabilities the parties entered an oral but enforceable joint venture agreement with essential terms: use of Luen Shing as vehicle, inclusion of all Luen Shing construction sites from June/July 2007 to 25 October 2018, equal sharing of profits and losses and capital injections/distributions as agreed; contemporaneous triplicate Notebooks, the 2017/2018 Tables, distribution history to Mr Lui and Mr Man and adverse inference from non‑production of bank records established the JV and the entitlement to accounts and related reliefs.
5 Mar 2026

LUEN SHING STEEL IRON ENGINEERING WORKS LTD v. MAN YIP KAU

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1259
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2258/2019

The Court accepted the evidence of Mr Lui and Mr Man as credible and the contemporaneous Notebooks and the 2017/2018 accounting tables as determinative; on the balance of probabilities the parties reached and performed an oral joint venture agreement from about June/July 2007 to 25 October 2018 using Luen Shing as the vehicle, sharing profits and losses equally; Luen Shing’s claims and allegations of overpayment were dismissed; accounts and interest were ordered and Mr Lui and Mr Man were entitled to retain their Notebooks and certain documents while corporate originals must be returned to Lu…
7 Mar 2025

RE PAUL Y. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW10/2025

A validation order was granted under section 182 Cap.32 because allowing the joint venture parties to complete the construction contract was in the best interests of the company's unsecured creditors by maximising the prospect of profit and avoiding increased liabilities; the application was unopposed and consistent with Re Hsin Chong.
31 May 2024

LO KWOK KWEI DAVID v. YEUNG KAI CHEUNG PATRICK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1222
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA638/2017

The Court found the parties' agreement was an equity-linked loan (ELL), not a trust; the evidence did not show Defendant knew of listing potential or had a listing plan by 20 October 2009; there was no dishonest withholding of material information by Defendant; no fiduciary duties capable of imposing the pleaded obligations arose on the facts; Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
4 Sept 2020

LAI KIM MING JOSEPH t/a JOE LINES CO v. MACROTECH SECURITY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3392/2014

On the balance of probabilities the relationship was a contractual joint venture (not agency); the plaintiff was entitled to HK$660,000 for 22 unpaid monthly fees but that sum is set off by the undisputed HK$100,000 loan (net HK$560,000), and entitled to HK$119,015.24 for July–August 2014 profits; claims based on implied terms or trusts in relation to Properties and bonus savings failed; defendant's counterclaims for breaches of fiduciary duties and recovery of profits/damages were dismissed.
4 Sept 2020

LAI KIM MING JOSEPH t/a JOE LINES CO v. MACROTECH SECURITY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3647/2014

On the balance of probabilities the contractual documents and contemporaneous conduct established a joint venture (separate Team A/Team B, profit‑sharing, shared overheads) rather than an agency; the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence of an oral March 2012 agreement for HK$30,000 per month (22 unpaid invoices) and accepted there was a mutual Termination Agreement of 25 July 2014 effective 1 September 2014; accordingly defendant liable to pay unpaid invoices net of agreed HK$100,000 set‑off and liable to pay plaintiff's share of profits for July and August 2014; claims for a proprietary s…
10 Sept 2019

LUEN SHING STEEL IRON AND ANOTHER v. MAN YIP KAU

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1207
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4977/2018

The application for summary judgment was dismissed and unconditional leave to defend was granted because there exist multiple triable issues of fact and law (notably existence and effect of an alleged JV, employment status, authority over documents and accounting disputes) such that the matter is unsuitable for summary disposal under Order 14.
26 Jul 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The court allowed Delco's proposed amendments in substance but rejected specific particulars that lacked a sufficient evidential basis. References to the Dutch Tax Authority's opinions must be removed; however, Delco may plead factual findings as its own averments if supported by independent evidence. Paragraphs 6.2(1)(b) and (c) (and associated paras 6.2(3) and (4)) were struck out as lacking basis; the rest of the proposed amendments were permitted. Costs orders were made against the plaintiff in specified respects.
30 Oct 2018

WAYGOOD INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITERD v. BEST PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 85
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE678/2018

The Tribunal found no binding set‑off mechanism affecting the applicant: the Lease expressly forbids deduction or set‑off, the Tri‑Partite Agreement did not make the applicant a party or expressly provide for set‑off, the single prior set‑off was an isolated commercial accommodation, and parol evidence did not suffice to vary the written Lease; accordingly the respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay arrears subject to limited relief from forfeiture if payment is made by the specified date.
1 Jun 2018

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. PERFEKTA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2017

The Court allowed the appeal in part: it concluded that the question of valuation and the calculation of taxable trading profit required amendment and further consideration by the Board and remitted the valuation issue to the Board; the Court upheld that the change-of-intention analysis and characterisation require careful fact-finding (distinguishing McClure on charging provisions) and that the Board erred in refusing the taxpayer leave to amend on valuation, necessitating remittal for determination.