Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominee/shareholder arrangements

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2022

YYT v. CCM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKFC 230
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4498/2016

The court dismissed W's constructive trust claims for failure to plead or prove any common intention including the intention of the legal owners (R5/R6) and lacking contemporaneous evidence. On resulting trust analysis, R6 was found to be the beneficial owner of House D44 and the three Workshops; H was the beneficial owner of Lotus Villas and House 63 prior to their sales and of House 29; R5 holds her minority shareholdings on resulting trust for H. The Matrimonial Pot Issue was held inappropriate to decide at this preliminary stage and the scope of trial limited to beneficial ownership issue…
25 Mar 2010

STONEHILL ASIA LTD AND OTHERS v. FARWEALTH CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

STONEHILL ASIA LTD AND OTHERS v. FARWEALTH CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4453/2003

The court accepted Chainid's evidence and documentary record showing Stonehill was incorporated and the sole share allotted to Chainid as nominee for Krungthep; although legal title passed to Kong by instrument dated 10 November 2000, no consideration was paid and the beneficial interest remained with Krungthep (and transferred back to Chainid on 19 December 2003); Kong acted as nominee/trustee and in giving instructions inconsistent with that role breached his fiduciary and trust duties; accordingly Chainid was entitled to declarations, an order for transfer, injunctions and assessment of da…
10 Sept 2002

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU

Citation

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9758/1999

The defendant failed to demonstrate that Master Yuen's order was made in his absence or that the judgment was a default judgment; the documentary and affirmation evidence showed the defendant received the sums via his company and applied them in ways inconsistent with his pleaded defences, rendering his defence shadowy and contradictory; therefore conditional leave to defend was properly imposed and not satisfied, the judgment was properly entered and the court refused to enlarge time for appeal because delay was excessive, reasons unconvincing, prejudice to plaintiff existed and the appeal l…

Hong Kong Case Law

YYT v. CCM AND OTHERS

STONEHILL ASIA LTD AND OTHERS v. FARWEALTH CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU