Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominee arrangements

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2024

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2022

Tracing is not a free-standing basis for broad Order 24 discovery; whether tracing-related discovery is appropriate depends on whether tracing is a live issue at the imminent trial (ie whether the plaintiff can identify specific property or has a proprietary injunction) — in this case tracing was not a live issue so broad tracing discovery was refused, but limited discovery was granted where the defendants' non-admission made bank statements and certain correspondence relevant and necessary to issues in the imminent trial.
28 Jun 2023

WONG PUI YIN GEORGEANNA (as the administratrix of the estate of WONG CECILIA PUI LUEN, deceased) v. CHEER CREATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1663
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP801/2022

The court dismissed the intervener's application to stay the originating summonses because leaving the companies without functioning boards was unacceptable and the intervener had not supported his equitable ownership claim sufficiently; accordingly the orders sought by the administratrix to register her as shareholder and to convene general meetings to reconstitute the boards were granted subject to undertakings, and costs of the inter partes summons were ordered against the intervener with a certificate for counsel.
29 May 2023

CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3819/2011

The trustees established the threshold of reasonable suspicion under s29 BO because OLN's disclosure showed substantial remittances from an Unidentified Account to OLN in respect of litigation benefiting the bankrupt and his nominees; the documents sought relate to the bankrupt and are reasonably required for the trustees to trace and recover assets; HSBC is able to provide the records and did not oppose disclosure; accordingly the court granted an order under s29 BO requiring HSBC to produce the specified account records within 42 days and refused an order for costs.
20 Jan 2023

HUI CHI MING v. KOON WING YEE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 93
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1479/2009

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the alleged Oral Agreement did not exist, the transfer of 100,000,000 shares was procured by duress, coercion and intimidation by agents of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff proved his claim and is entitled to damages of HK$135,000,000 plus interest; the 1st Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed and indemnity costs awarded against him.
26 Feb 2021

CHAN YU YAN v. IMPERIAL SIERRA GROUP LIMITED HOLDINGS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2048/2019

Defendants failed to adduce sufficient evidence or particulars to establish a bona fide triable issue that an oral collateral agreement or nominee arrangement negated the plaintiff's contractual entitlement under the written Subscription Agreement; absent that evidence and given the entire agreement clause, the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment affirmed.
12 Jun 2018

LEE YEE WAN EVA v. LEE TAK GATE RICHARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA417/2015

Because the Plaintiff paid the entire purchase price and related expenses, a purchase money resulting trust arose in her favour; the presumption of advancement does not apply between siblings and the Defendant failed to rebut the resulting trust by direct evidence of an intention to benefit him, therefore the Plaintiff is sole beneficial owner and the Defendant holds the property on trust for her.
5 May 2017

LI EN QIANG v. NOVA DIRECT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI EN QIANG v. NOVA DIRECT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP485/2016

The court granted both the proprietary injunction over the remaining participating shares and a Mareva injunction freezing Nova's assets up to HK$99.5 million because the plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried including a good arguable case of fraud/dishonesty, the balance of convenience favored preservation of the proprietary interest (which would be irreparable), and there was a real risk of dissipation given Nova's inadequate known assets to satisfy potential judgment.
29 Oct 2015

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WANG JIAN HUA AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WANG JIAN HUA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP745/2013

On the proved primary facts and permissible inferences the court found compelling evidence that Asset Rich and Zhang Ying acted as nominees for the 1st respondent, that the 1st respondent concealed his interest and received transfers, and that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents culpably failed in disclosure and enquiry obligations; their conduct constituted misfeasance and other misconduct under s.214(1)(b) and resulted in members being deprived of material information under s.214(1)(c); the application for orders to procure subsidiary litigation was dismissed as impracticable and unnecessary.
10 Sept 2013

H v. W AND OTHERS

Citation

H v. W AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC6/2008

Applying the sharing principle and s7 MPPO, the court found H had materially breached his duty of full and frank disclosure, destroyed/withheld documents and engaged in conduct justifying adverse inferences and additions to the matrimonial pool; the offshore trust was a discretionary family trust (not a 'dear me' trust) but variation was justified to achieve a clean break by removing H as beneficiary; 50% of the trust value was treated as a financial resource for W; the court quantified disclosed and reasonably inferred undisclosed assets, applied a conservative market-based growth rate, calc…
18 Nov 2002

LI TIN SANG v. POON BUN CHAK AND OTHERS

Citation

LI TIN SANG v. POON BUN CHAK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV153/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and specific rejection of the plaintiff's evidence that the contested payments were dividends were supported by the evidence and contemporaneous documents; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove that the shares were held on trust for him.