Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of fraud

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2025

王晓葵對陈卓豪及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3573
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1495/2023

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or otherwise satisfy s14AA(4); the amended originating summons failed to plead required particulars of fraud and did not state the relief sought; the applicant had confirmed no further amendments would be made; consequently leave to appeal and extension of time were refused and the 14/4/25 summons was dismissed; post‑hearing affidavits filed without leave were not considered.
30 Nov 2023

SUNNI INTERNATIONAL LTD (in liquidation) v. KAO WAI HO FRANCIS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2882
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1884/2018

The Summons (seeking leave out of time and strike-out) was dismissed: leave was refused because the delay was inordinate, inadequately explained and prejudicial given prior court-sanctioned deadlines; the strike-out application was rejected on the merits because the plaintiff's fraud and conspiracy pleadings were not shown to be plainly and obviously unsustainable and the limitation defence was not manifestly destructive of the claims.
21 Sept 2017

林馬光對警務處長及積金局

Citation

林馬光對警務處長及積金局
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2473/2016

The claim was struck out because it was frivolous and an abuse of process: the pleaded allegations of conspiracy and fraud lacked necessary particulars and evidential basis, the asserted police liability for failure to investigate fails as a matter of law on public policy grounds (Hill principle), the pleaded heads of damage were implausible and the defects were fundamental and not curable by amendment.
9 Aug 2017

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS

Citation

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA494/2015

Joinder of Holdings was appropriate because any limitation defence remained available and any incremental costs or prejudice could be addressed by costs or other submissions; the proposed amendments did not fundamentally alter the case and were not bound to fail, but two specific averments alleging premeditated intent to conceal and never to cause payment lacked particulars and must be disallowed absent particulars.
17 Mar 2017

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

The court held the original Statement of Claim already pleaded a distinct case of fraud/fraudulent breach of trust with sufficient particulars; the proposed amendments (including a fraudulent concealment cause) were permissible as they allege aspects of breach of fiduciary duty amounting to fraud which fall within s20(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance or otherwise can be addressed by defendants in their defence; the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was denied.
14 Dec 2012

BILLION LEAD INVESTMENT LTD v. UNION JOYCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BILLION LEAD INVESTMENT LTD v. UNION JOYCE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2145/2011

The petition sufficiently pleaded particulars to raise an inference of fictitious invoices and misuse of shared credit facilities; the documents sought are likely in respondents' knowledge and possession, are relevant in the broad Peruvian Guano sense, and discovery is necessary and proportionate for determining claims for loss and indemnity. Accordingly limited and time‑confined specific discovery was ordered as necessary for fair disposal under post-CJR principles.
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. TRIPLE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. TRIPLE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA394/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statements of claim lacked particulars of dishonest or fraudulent conduct, the liquidator's affidavits contained specific matters from which those allegations could be inferred and which ought to be pleaded; the proper remedy was to order the plaintiff to amend the statements of claim to include those particulars rather than to set aside the joinder orders or strike out the claims, and the fraud limitation exception applied where pleaded.
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statement of claim inadequately pleaded particulars of dishonest or fraudulent breaches, the liquidators had placed sufficient evidential material in their affidavit (Mr Blaauw) from which particulars could be pleaded; accordingly joinder was upheld but the plaintiff was ordered to amend the statements of claim to incorporate the particulars deposed in the affidavit. The court would not strike out the claims or set aside the joinder where particulars exist and can be pleaded; limitation did not bar the pleaded fraudulent claims where s.20(1)(a)…
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA395/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statements of claim lacked necessary particulars of alleged dishonest or fraudulent breaches and relied on affidavit material, the affidavit disclosed matters capable of being pleaded as particulars; the proper course was to require the plaintiff to amend the statements of claim to plead the particulars from the liquidator's affidavit within a fixed time rather than set aside the Master’s joinder orders.
17 Mar 2010

YONG WENG CHYE ( 楊榮財) v. HO YU KUEN (何汝權) AND OTHERS

Citation

YONG WENG CHYE ( 楊榮財) v. HO YU KUEN (何汝權) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1303/2009

Court struck out fraudulent misrepresentation claim against D1 and D3 for failure to plead knowledge/recklessness with sufficient particularity; allowed Plaintiff opportunity to re-amend insofar as allegations against D2 might survive if properly particularised; conspiracy pleadings (119 and 120(a)-(e)) and related fraud-based claims struck out unless reversible by exact, tightly-formulated re-amendment within directed timetable; paragraphs 121-124 struck out; costs ordered for defendants with summary assessment directions.