Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominee companies

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2024

MPY v. WYC

Citation

[2024] HKFC 26
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3297/2022

The court found the Wife demonstrated a bona fide claim that the transfer of 100% shareholdings from Merida to Super Matrix and Grand Goal defeated ancillary relief; Merida's deregistration did not, on the evidence, preclude it from holding assets; facts indicated Merida operated as the Husband's nominee such that joinder of the transferee companies was necessary and just and convenient to determine the proprietary issues; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to join Super Matrix and Grand Goal as 2nd and 3rd respondents (limited to ancillary relief) and made a costs order nisi agai…
10 Dec 2020

TWF v. HWKR

Citation

[2020] HKFC 258
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7615/2019

The wife failed to establish that the documents and factual answers sought were relevant or necessary to dispose fairly of the pleaded preliminary issue of beneficial ownership of the Sentosa property; questionnaires of this breadth are inappropriate against interveners who have not filed Form E; immigration records are not properly the subject of an Order 24 specific discovery order and, in any event, are irrelevant; accordingly both the Order 24 and Order 26 summonses are dismissed and costs are awarded to the interveners as ordered nisi.
5 Jul 2019

TYT v. TLH

Citation

[2019] HKFC 177
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA3690/2017

The court refused to order expanded general discovery because the applicant failed to show the documents were in the respondent's possession custody or control and failed to establish necessity or proportionality for extending the statutory 12-month Form E disclosure period; specific discovery requires particularisation and, absent such specification or proof of control (including joinder of third parties where assets are in third party names), the orders sought must be dismissed.
19 Jan 2015

BULOVA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SAN MA INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

BULOVA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SAN MA INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1831/2013

Where a patentee has sent threatening letters and defends a threats action by asserting infringement, the patentee occupies the position of a plaintiff for security for costs; where the patent was assigned to a company that has no other business and is majority owned by the assignor, that company may be treated as a nominee and there is reason to doubt its ability to pay; accordingly security for costs should be ordered. Applying a broad-brush assessment, HK$800,000 was a just amount to secure costs up to exchange of witness statements and expert reports.
14 Oct 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV6/2014

Leave to appeal was refused: concurrent factual findings established the Takeover Arrangement was fabricated and that Top Selection and related companies were nominees of Hu; the value of the proprietary claim could not be shown to be clearly quantifiable at the HK$1,000,000 statutory threshold so no as‑of‑right appeal lay and discretionary leave was refused; costs order nisi made against applicants.
14 Oct 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV7/2014

Leave to appeal as of right was refused because the value of the shares was not clearly quantifiable at HK$1,000,000 or more and the required immediacy of financial effect was absent; concurrently, the Court upheld factual findings that the Takeover Arrangement was fabricated and that the shares and underlying assets were held for PEWC, so discretionary leave was refused and the applications dismissed.
23 Jan 2003

DONALD KOO HOI-YAN v. EMMANUEL CHU CHEE KAO AND OTHERS

Citation

DONALD KOO HOI-YAN v. EMMANUEL CHU CHEE KAO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3533/1995

The judge found on the evidence that the investments were made and held through corporate vehicles (Dollarwell and the 3rd defendant) with the plaintiff holding beneficial interests in the companies rather than establishing that the 1st and 2nd defendants were trustees of the investments; declarations of trust over company shares did not convert the 1st and 2nd defendants into trustees of the underlying property or Fund unit for the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff failed to prove the asserted trusts and the originating summons must be dismissed; remedies lie against the companies and by co…
7 Mar 1995

STANDARD CHARTERED SECURITIES LTD. v. ARTHUR LAI and Others

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED SECURITIES LTD. v. ARTHUR LAI and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2757/1993

The court found Arthur Lai breached fiduciary duties by secretly arranging and accepting commissions (A$2,000,000 and HK$26,400,000) through nominees without informed consent; Mandarin and Wealthcorp were his alter egos and are liable for knowing receipt and assistance; Mandarin also held profits from the placement (HK$1,264,443) and must account; conspiracy established among Lai and collaborators to deprive the company of those sums.
15 Nov 1993

in re World Trade Centre Group Limited

Citation

in re World Trade Centre Group Limited
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3870/1993

Where (1) a blocked shareholding is contrary to the public interest, (2) adequate investigative steps to identify the beneficial owners have been taken and further inquiry would be futile, and (3) protective measures are imposed for the blocked shareholders and notice safeguards for payment-out, the Court should order a sale under s.46(4); such a Court-ordered sale vests good title in the purchaser.