13 Dec 2023
The court restored the Company because the evidence showed the Company retained valuable assets (the three Netblocks) and therefore had more than a shadowy prospect of establishing value, and on the available evidence IPTT held the shares as nominee for the Applicant making him the beneficial owner.
24 Dec 2021
The court held the appellant's pleadings were diametrically inconsistent with his earlier sworn affirmations, the belated allegation of an oral gift had no sufficient factual basis, the inconsistencies were material and unexplained, and therefore the claim was an abuse of process and plainly bound to fail so striking out and dismissal were justified.
31 Jan 2018
The court held that participating employees were the actual beneficial owners of the relevant CSI shares and that, from the transfer on 11 April 2005, those aliquot shares were held on fixed trusts for each employee; the BVI discretionary trust deeds executed on 28 November 2005 could not validly resettle assets already subject to those fixed trusts and were ineffective as against the beneficiaries; the 2008 Confirmation did not constitute informed ratification of a discretionary BVI trust.
28 Mar 2014
Defendant failed to establish a bona fide defence of total failure of consideration because (i) the cheques constituted cash consideration and equitable interest in the nominee-held shares passed on payment, (ii) contemporaneous documentary evidence showed plaintiff had taken steps to effect the transfer and defendant delayed or avoided completing it, and (iii) alleged forgery and account-closure matters did not raise triable issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment; therefore summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal dismissed.
20 May 2004
The memorandum signed by the 1st Defendant constituted an acknowledgement of indebtedness and pledge of shares; the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were liable as guarantors because the document and surrounding facts established guarantee obligations and guarantees can be proved like any other contract in Hong Kong; accordingly all three defendants are jointly and severally liable for the principal and accrued interest.
6 Dec 2002
The judge accepted the 3rd defendant's cogent and truthful account of the company's trading and use of the letters of credit, found no misfeasance or fraud, concluded the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary wrongful conduct for derivative relief and dismissed the substantive claims and the HK$110,000 claim, awarding costs to the defendants.
29 Apr 1994
There was insufficient evidence of any specific agreement transferring beneficial ownership of the supplier rebates to the plaintiff; the rebates remained the company's property, the plaintiff (as manager and nominee shareholder) was accountable for those funds, and therefore judgment was given for the plaintiff on her admitted salary/bonus claims but the company succeeded on its counterclaim for the amounts in the savings account with interest and costs.