Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2024

ALUHOUSE COMPANY LTD v. SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP967/2023

The learned judge correctly exercised discretion on costs after a detailed, fact-driven consideration of pre-action conduct and the injunction application; the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and the interests of justice do not justify leave, therefore leave to appeal is refused and the defendant ordered to pay the costs of the application.
31 Mar 2021

K&C ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. G AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 865
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2021

The Defendants were properly served and had notice of the arbitration as evidenced by DHL delivery receipts, emails, and tribunal findings of participation; they disclosed no reasonably arguable s.86 ground to set aside the Enforcement Order; they failed to comply with the affidavit filing requirement; accordingly the summons to set aside the Enforcement Order was dismissed and enforcement proceeds.
5 Feb 2018

KWOK MEI HA MAY v. CHIU YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3079/2015

Plaintiff's applications were dismissed because the defendant has arguable equitable defences: there is an arguable constructive trust in favour of Mr Tang and a factual dispute whether his equitable interest was gifted to the defendant and whether the plaintiff had notice; these are triable issues making strike out and summary judgment inappropriate, and Order 14A is unsuitable because questions posed were hypothetical.
23 Sept 2015

GRANDE CACHE COAL LP AND ANOTHER v. MARUBENI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRANDE CACHE COAL LP AND ANOTHER v. MARUBENI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2136/2015

The Ex Parte Order was discharged because the Advance Payment Guarantee is independent and no fraud was alleged; the plaintiffs failed to meet the higher evidential threshold required to restrain payment under such a guarantee; there was material non-disclosure regarding the nature of the guarantee and governing principles and improper/illusory notice was given of the ex parte hearing; damages were an adequate alternative remedy.
3 Aug 2012

EAST SURPLUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TINCHO INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EAST SURPLUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TINCHO INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3417/2010

Leave to appeal refused because the 1st Defendant has no realistic prospect of success: the court correctly applied an objective test and found no reasonable assurance by the liquidators that would have conveyed an entitlement to the Exterior Wall, there is insufficient evidence of reliance and detriment to support proprietary estoppel, factual findings are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal, and any licence would not bind the Plaintiff.
31 May 2012

EAST SURPLUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TINCHO INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EAST SURPLUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TINCHO INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3417/2010

The 1st Defendant failed to prove the essential elements of proprietary estoppel: there was no clear and unequivocal assurance from the Liquidators that ownership would be transferred, the 1st Defendant's asserted belief was unreasonable in the commercial context and not shown to be known or encouraged by the Liquidators, and the claimed detriment was not substantiated as sufficiently substantial; Plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser without notice as of acceptance on 30 October 2009; therefore Plaintiff succeeds and is entitled to injunction, reinstatement and damages from 29 June 2010.
10 Oct 2011

TAI ROSA YIN HAR v. CHAN SIK MING HARRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAI ROSA YIN HAR v. CHAN SIK MING HARRY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA353/2010

The appeal is allowed because the 2nd Defendant established a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success: the evidence of a family arrangement, the son being named purchaser and paying the deposit, the 2nd Defendant's substantial contribution and long exclusive occupation, and the Plaintiff's long acquiescence together make it arguable that an equitable life interest or proprietary estoppel arose and that the Plaintiff had notice; these matters require trial assessment of credibility and cannot be rejected at this stage.
25 Mar 2011

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALITY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALITY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1294/2005

The Lucky Dragon Agreement constituted a disposition of the Shares with intent to defraud the plaintiff under s60(1); Lucky Dragon failed to prove it was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice under s60(3), was part of the conspiracy, and therefore the sale is set aside, Lucky Dragon liable for conspiracy damages and ordered to disclose and facilitate restoration and to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
16 Mar 2011

PRIME ASPECT LTD v. CHAN WAN CHUNG

Citation

PRIME ASPECT LTD v. CHAN WAN CHUNG
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD3147/2010

After the applicant forfeited the tenancy by serving the writ of summons, it was not entitled to rely on Clause 4 of Schedule II to terminate the tenancy; the subsequent contractual notice was invalid as inconsistent with the prior election to forfeit, therefore the possession application is dismissed and costs ordered to the respondent.
18 Feb 2010

HOPE VIEW LTD v. YUE LEE FA

Citation

HOPE VIEW LTD v. YUE LEE FA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP307/2009

The summons to strike out was dismissed because the plaintiff's claim based on registered ownership disclosed a reasonable cause of action and the existence of disputed beneficial interests and notice raised factual questions for trial; thus the court could not summarily determine those proprietary issues and the matter must proceed as if begun by Writ.