Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ownership of shares

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2019

LI KIN KEUNG v. YAT FAT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA341/2013

The court refused all stay applications because the appeal was not shown to be arguable given the trial judge's factual findings, the proffered new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements and would not render the appeal arguable, no satisfactory evidence of dissipation was produced and Li provided an undertaking regarding shares; accordingly, enforcement orders under Order 45 rr 6 and 8 were justified to fix compliance time and authorise execution of share transfer documents, with costs to follow the event.
9 Dec 2019

LI KIN KEUNG v. PU MEI LEE, TERESA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA873/2013

Pu failed to establish an arguable appeal or real risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy admissibility and raised new factual points that could have been produced at trial; the parties had elected to resolve ownership issues in these civil proceedings so it was unjust to stay execution or proceedings pending ancillary relief; enforcement under Order 45 rr 6 and 8 was therefore permitted and costs were awarded to the successful party.
16 Nov 2015

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI, also known as WONG SIN LEI AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI, also known as WONG SIN LEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL34/2013

The court allowed only a limited amendment to para 4(1) to plead three general sources of funds for the acquisition of the Luxey and Railsmedia shares (Railsmedia CPS, the HK$61.9m Fully Wealthy loan, and Excel’s own deposits) but refused leave for late discovery of the second category of documents because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence as to provenance and authenticity, the documents posed serious questions, and their late admission would prejudice the 1st defendant and disrupt the trial without good reason. The limited amendment was permitted only because it did not introduce new…
27 Sept 2013

Z v. X

Citation

Z v. X
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV14/2013

Leave to appeal on the point of law was refused because the proposed questions were fact specific and did not properly arise; however leave was granted to the husband to appeal on the ownership of the NUIGL shares to avoid the possibility of inconsistency with the intervener's appeal, and a stay of execution was ordered to the extent of $143.5 million.
12 Nov 2012

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1315/2009

The Order 14 summons was dismissed because the issues were lengthy, complex and involved genuine factual disputes; the defences were not frivolous and the matter required a trial rather than summary disposal; accordingly defendants awarded costs with certificate for two counsel.
12 Sept 2008

SZE KUNG YEE v. LAM KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

SZE KUNG YEE v. LAM KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1620/2008

There are serious questions to be tried as to ownership of the shares, the true loan period under the third extension agreement and whether interest repayment was suspended; because damages would be inadequate to the plaintiff (sale would destroy the company's business) but adequate to the defendants, the interim injunction should be continued until trial or further order; fortification of the plaintiff's undertaking is not required given sufficient asset value under defendants' control.
27 Apr 2005

HO TAK MING v. CHIU KA TSIN AND OTHERS

Citation

HO TAK MING v. CHIU KA TSIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/2004

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility determinations that the shares belonged to the deceased, found no error warranting appellate intervention, dismissed the appeal, and ordered costs against the appellants; the appellants failed to rebut the trial judge's conclusions including the presumption relied on by them.
26 May 2000

Asian Oceanic Bank Ltd., Asian Oceanic Nominees Ltd. and Asian Oceanic Ltd. (all in liquidation) v. Lambang Maju Sdn Bhd (the "Actual 1st Defendant") and Others

Citation

Asian Oceanic Bank Ltd., Asian Oceanic Nominees Ltd. and Asian Oceanic Ltd. (all in liquidation) v. Lambang Maju Sdn Bhd (the "Actual 1st Defendant") and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4151/1993

Documentary evidence established express trusts in 1985 in favour of Sun Hong Kee and Newport Plaza; purchasers along the Sammy trail were on constructive notice and therefore could not take free of those trusts under the nemo dat rule; the alleged pledge by Gold Eagle was not proven; accordingly beneficial title to 3,000,000 shares rests with Newport Plaza and to 3,500,000 shares with Sun Hong Kee.
25 Jun 1999

THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE, LTD. v. LEE TAK YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE, LTD. v. LEE TAK YAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP299/1999

Given the overlapping subject matter of HCMP299/99 and HCMP457/99 and the risk of inefficiency or inconsistent findings, the court exercised its discretion to set aside Registrar Chu's order, vacate the earlier hearing date and list the appeal to be heard together with the related proceedings before Mrs Justice Le Pichon on 16 November 1999; costs ordered to be costs in the appeal against Master Kwan's order.