Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Maintenance and champerty

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2025

WELL HONOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS OF LANDS DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 950
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV412/2024

Appeal dismissed because the applicant never had an estate or interest in the resumed land and could not avail itself of s.8; the deceased's entitlement fell under s.6 and the assignee (at best owner of a private assignment) could not validly claim under s.8; as a result the applicant had no valid claim and the judicial review was rightly dismissed (alternative Lands Tribunal remedy also not exhausted).
29 Jul 2022

NG CHUNG YING DAYDES v. TANG MAN KIT otherwise known as TANG MAN KIT, TERRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2021

Applicant established serious issues to be tried (validity of removals/appointments, validity of Bonus tenancies, and validity of Tinting Lease including maintenance/champerty questions) but failed to show real risk of loss or dissipation or that appointment of an interim receiver was just or convenient; D1 remained the sole registered manager with legal power under s15 NTO to enter the Tinting Lease and the balance of convenience and demands of justice weighed against appointing a receiver, so the Summons was dismissed.
27 May 2020

RE PATRICK COWLEY AND LUI YEE MAN, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF THE COMPANY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 922
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP373/2020

A liquidator does not require the court's prior sanction to enter a funding agreement which either effects an assignment of a chose in action or funds litigation, because such actions fall within the statutory powers conferred by Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 25 (notably para 9) read with s251(1)(b) for voluntary liquidations and s199(3) for winding-ups by the court; court directions should be sought only to resolve discrete legal questions or genuine legal uncertainty, not to approve ordinary commercial judgments of the liquidator.
19 Mar 2020

RE A

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2728/2017

The court refused the applicant's ex parte application for pre‑clearance declarations. It held that the 1st/2nd declarations as framed necessarily involved declarations of non‑criminality and that civil courts should make such declarations only in very or truly exceptional circumstances after a fact‑sensitive inquiry into the totality of the facts and a balancing of competing public policies (access to justice vs. risk of corrupting public justice). Qualified civil‑only declarations would be impractical and meaningless in Hong Kong where maintenance and champerty remain crimes and torts. The…
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1867/2017

The court dismissed both the s765 restoration and the s42 rectification/removal applications because the applicants failed to establish it would be 'just' to restore the Company given deliberate and opaque deregistration conduct, fabricated and inconsistent evidence, lack of adequate disclosure on who funded and instructed post-dissolution litigation, and because rectification/removal would improperly achieve the practical effects of restoration despite the court finding restoration not just; Jaldhi was permitted to be joined as a party.
11 Jan 2019

GLORY UNITED DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 1
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR1/2012

The accrued right to compensation under the FSRO is a chose in action assignable at law; the Assignment from GUDL to Senso was valid because Senso had a genuine commercial interest independent of the assignment as part of the corporate group; therefore Senso has locus standi and substitution as applicant is permitted.
9 Aug 2018

RAAFAT IMAM v. LIFE (CHINA) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1508/2017

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration and to approve the Funding Agreement because the plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting a declaration of non-criminality and failed to join a proper contradictor (DPP or Secretary for Justice); accordingly the summons for declaration and approval was dismissed.
31 Jan 2018

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA623/2015

The receivership was discharged because there had been a highly material change of circumstances and material non‑disclosures to the court: a large majority of plaintiffs had contracted to sell and been paid for their interests (thereby removing the protective justification for the receivership), substantial funds originated from a potentially interested third party (Tianrui), and the plaintiffs and their solicitors had failed to disclose these matters to the court, such that the interim protective purpose of the receivership had ceased and the appointment should be terminated.
23 May 2017

CHI, DONG EUN v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHI, DONG EUN v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW2/2017

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner lacked the requisite locus to present a winding up petition under s.179(1)(a)(ii) (he had not held the requisite shareholding for the statutory period) and the circumstances demonstrated a prima facie abuse of process; accordingly the petition must be struck out and costs awarded against the petitioner.
27 Jan 2017

NG KONG YEAM BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, NG CHUNG SAN v. FARLIM GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NG KONG YEAM BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, NG CHUNG SAN v. FARLIM GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2176/2011

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: Malaysian law on maintenance and champerty was not pleaded so the default presumption did not apply; credible contemporaneous evidence including statutory declaration, handwriting expert reports and admissions undermined Madam Kay’s integrity and she did not adequately challenge that evidence, establishing the Committee’s entitlement to have her removed and to costs against her.