Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Limitation ordinance s31

Legal area

Court

22 May 2025

GURDAS SABHAGCHAND CHOITHRAMANI v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GURDAS SABHAGCHAND CHOITHRAMANI (A DISCHARGED BANKRUPT)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 422
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/2024

Leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the plaintiff failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition (documents were in his possession and could have been produced below) and failed the second condition because the new evidence could not cure the ASoC's pleading defect as to concealment and reliance on ss26/31; residual discretion was not exercised given bare allegations of concealment and lack of proof.
23 Jul 2019

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as MOULIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1715
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA167/2008

The court found that the Moulin Group's financial statements were falsified, that Holdings was insolvent during the Relevant Period on adjusted accounts, and that the Defendant, by virtue of her role and knowledge of multiple red flags, breached her duty of care and skill by failing to investigate; accordingly she was liable to account for unlawful dividends and share repurchases (strict liability for unlawful dividends subject to statutory defence which was not advanced), limitation did not bar the claim under s31, and no further set‑off beyond the agreed auditor settlement was allowed.