Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation issues

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2025

AMIDAS HONG KONG LTD v. CHE SI LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1406/2024

Default monetary judgment for unjust enrichment and a proprietary declaration were granted and an account/tracing inquiry was rolled up and determined with apportionment of interest; vesting order under s.52(1)(e) Trustee Ordinance was refused because remedial/category 2 constructive trustees are not within the statute's ambit for vesting orders in these circumstances; a stand-alone vesting order against the bank was refused; an execution order under s.25A HCO was refused for lack of pre-existing obligation to execute documents; garnishee order nisi application rolled up with default judgment…
24 Mar 2025

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SINGAPORE MEDICINE CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP72/2023

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff largely in the terms sought but with modifications: the injunction is confined to 'oils, medicated oils, balms and medicated balms' and includes the phrase 'associated in the course of trade with' but does not proscribe the standalone use of '正宗老人' or '老人'; disclosure obligations in §§4 and 5 remain without a temporal limit and must be by reference to each offending article with 'all relevant documents' required except that sub-paragraph (e) is limited at this stage to defendants providing affirmations of how they assess manufacturing costs with liberty to a…
13 Jan 2020

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB345/2001

There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the s29 order was a proper exercise of discretion based on reasonable suspicions and a prima facie basis that the Sisters could provide information; the Sisters had unreasonably delayed prosecuting the appeal and failed to comply with the order; and they failed to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory; accordingly stay was refused and costs were ordered.
21 Sept 2017

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB345/2001

The court ordered the private examination of the two Sisters under s29 because the trustees demonstrated a reasonable requirement and prima facie possession of relevant information concerning offshore nominee accounts (including the HK$11 million transfer), certain SFPH share transactions (subject to specified limits), the Sisters' limited involvement in BSW/Dubois Beijing matters, and the Sisters' provision of funds for the bankrupt's living; to avoid oppression the examination scope is limited to transfers or payments equal to or over HK$100,000 (or equivalent) from 1996 onwards, excludes i…
28 Nov 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HONG KONG LAND LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HONG KONG LAND LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA432/2013

The court held that the striking out orders and RAO/RPO were final orders determining substantive rights and therefore did not require leave to appeal; the plaintiff's applications for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders were in many instances out of time under Order 59 r.2B and had to be dismissed; where leave was required and applications were within time, the plaintiff failed to show reasonable prospects of success or other interests of justice and leave was refused; the proposed amendment to the 13/8/13 347 Order was a clerical slip and was allowed under Order 20 r.11; costs were…
31 Mar 2010

NG PIT HAK AND OTHERS v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG PIT HAK AND OTHERS v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP428/2009

The court ordered restoration of Sinolink Group Limited because the applicants demonstrated non‑shadowy prospects of a substantive claim, particularly as to unauthorised withdrawals and stock trading from the Company's account, the Registrar did not oppose restoration, and the opposing party failed to persuade the court to take the exceptional course of refusing restoration; restoration was necessary to enable pursuit of substantive and derivative claims subject to subsequent full evidential hearing.
11 Jan 2006

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF UNISON INDUSTRIAL BUILDING v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF UNISON INDUSTRIAL BUILDING v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2233/2004

The pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action in proprietary estoppel such that it would be inappropriate to strike out: the facts alleged show prima facie encouragement/acquiescence by the developer and detriment to owners, and issues of unconscionability and true detriment require trial determination; the I.O. has locus standi under the statutory scheme. Therefore the strike‑out application is dismissed and the matter proceeds to trial.

Hong Kong Case Law

AMIDAS HONG KONG LTD v. CHE SI LTD

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SINGAPORE MEDICINE CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HONG KONG LAND LTD

NG PIT HAK AND OTHERS v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF UNISON INDUSTRIAL BUILDING v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS