Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misappropriation

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

HERO INVESTMENTS LTD v. TSANG KWONG CHIU KEVIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1108
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV409/2024

The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings preferring Tsang over Hong and found no palpable or legal error in the evaluation of evidence; the trial judge reasonably rejected an adverse inference from destroyed records given the accepted explanation and found the Default Judgment against CCCG only of limited evidential background value; accordingly the appeal is dismissed, the declaration and transfer of the share to Tsang stands, and specified sums are released or retained as ordered.
24 Nov 2025

LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. MARK DAVID LAMB AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5658
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1646/2023

Leave to amend the SJ Summons was granted: the Additional Relief (claim for damages for improperly settling the arbitration) had been pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim, the Seychelles judgment handed down after the SJ Summons supported the amendment, the 1st Defendant failed to show the amendment was bound to fail or that real prejudice or mala fides existed, and any further evidence is to be limited and sequenced by court directions; costs and procedural directions were ordered accordingly.
30 Oct 2025

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased) AND OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA570/2014

The court found on the balance of all evidence that the deceased father was the beneficial owner of the disputed funds and of the sums used to fund Parkview Centre and Loong Wan Building; the defendant held those funds as trustee/nominee for the father; accordingly the entries in Loong San and Loong Wan recorded as owing to the defendant were beneficially the father's and the defendant was ordered to account and to repay specified sums; defendant's counterclaims and acquiescence defence failed.
12 Sept 2025

DA VINCI HOME COLLECTION (HONG KONG) LTD v. TONY PHUA (also known as PHUA AH KOW or 潘東尼 or 潘东尼) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1602/2017

On the totality of the evidence the court found the defendants credible and proved that the impugned transfers were authorized and undertaken for legitimate business purposes of the DV Group (public relations/settlement, refunds of deposits, currency exchange and inter-company settlements); the plaintiffs failed to prove misappropriation, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt or breach of fiduciary duty, and failed to produce key documents and witnesses; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.
12 Sept 2025

DA VINCI (HK) LTD v. WONG CHI SUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1600/2017

On the totality of the credible documentary and oral evidence, including contemporaneous ledgers, bank records, email trails and credible testimony (notably Wong), the court found the impugned transfers were authorized and undertaken for legitimate commercial purposes of the DV Group (currency exchange, PR/settlement, refunds of deposits, inter-company debt settlement), that plaintiffs failed to prove dishonest assistance or knowing receipt or breach of fiduciary duty on balance of probabilities, and that adverse inferences from plaintiffs' non-disclosure and failure to call key witnesses fur…
26 May 2025

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHEN LI-JUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP36/2021

The court was satisfied the three statutory conditions under s214(1) SFO were satisfied on the agreed undisputed facts that the business or affairs of NAH were conducted involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct, and that the Relevant Respondents were partly responsible by failing to exercise proper supervision, diligence and independent judgment; the Carecraft procedure was appropriate to dispose of their liability; the proposed disqualification periods were within the reasonable range and therefore the court ordered disqualification of Lu Ying for 9 years, Ren Hai and Pe…
20 May 2025

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. BANNER (CHINA) INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA863/2023

The court held that, subject to proper funding, indemnity and any Beddoe directions, the Administrator must participate in HCA 16 as an Interested Party because the Estate has an interest in the subject assets and it would be wrong to leave recovery entirely to a beneficiary; HCA 1449 and HCA 863 are not stayed; the Administrator must file and serve a statement of claim (or consolidated pleading) within specified time limits; Mother’s deposition is to be taken on specified dates with precise procedural directions; Try Together summonses are adjourned sine die until the Administrator files ple…
16 May 2025

LEUNG CHA SEE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD AND OTHERS v. MAN KAM HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2003
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1685/2019

Plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with the necessary particularity for fraud allegations, that the April–July 2018 transactions were fictitious or constituted misappropriation; Man (as General Manager) did owe fiduciary duties but plaintiffs did not prove breach; Zhu was not liable to pay the alleged HK$8,422,767.72 contribution because the Agreement did not impose that payment and ambiguities are resolved against the drafting investors; Propitious breached its funding obligations which entitled the other contracting party to withhold performance as appropriate;…
18 Mar 2025

KISHIN SAMTANI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF NARIAN SAMTANI, DECEASED v. CHANDERSEN TIKAMDAS SAMTANI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2011

Plaintiff's claims were dismissed because he failed to prove the alleged family Understanding or Indian tradition, failed to prove that the disputed properties were partnership assets of the 1989 partnership (most were acquired before the 1989 partnership or not shown to be brought into the partnership and there was no evidence of transfer of assets between successive firms), failed to prove the Evelyn Towers Agreement, and failed to prove misappropriation given the credible contemporaneous evidence of the CESCO payment/commission arrangement; conversely the evidence showed Narian had been in…
24 Sept 2024

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. WEI XING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2012

The court refused to extend time because the delay was inordinate and inadequately explained, the applicant lacked real prospects of success on appeal, and the 1st Plaintiff would suffer prejudice from reopening a long‑expired judgment.