Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partnership accounting

Legal area

Court

3 May 2019

陳培光對薛玉貞及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKCA 480
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP1/2019

The Court refused the out‑of‑time application because the applicant showed an unjustified delay of nearly two months with no reasonable explanation and the proposed grounds lacked a real prospect of success: the primary judge's factual findings and legal conclusions (including equal partnership shares, absence of problematic accounts, applicant's prior withdrawal of capital and estoppel) were supported by evidence and law, and the new 'suspicious expenditures' claim was properly disallowed below and could not found leave.
3 Mar 2010

ARTHUR ANTONIO DA SILVA AND ANOTHER v. GABRIEL RICHARDO DIAS-AZEDO AND ANOTHER

Citation

ARTHUR ANTONIO DA SILVA AND ANOTHER v. GABRIEL RICHARDO DIAS-AZEDO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2158/2009

Because the partnership accounts relied on by the plaintiffs were provisional and the garnishee presented credible evidence that final accounts may show a different position (potentially that the garnishee is owed money by the debtor), the plaintiffs had not proved a debt owed by the garnishee to the debtor; the proper course was to adjourn the application to allow Grant Thornton to finalise verifiable accounts rather than make the Order nisi absolute.
19 Nov 2009

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2215/2008

Short delay in filing notice of appeal excusable and time extended to 9 November 2009; on merits at interlocutory stage the emails, signed confirmation and related correspondence gave the plaintiff a very high probability of success and showed the 2nd defendant's knowledge such that ordering security for costs was unjustified; the counterclaim did not make the plaintiff solely an attacker warranting security; sum sought was excessive and, in any event, the HK$200,000 fortification did not constitute security for costs; therefore defendants' appeal against the Master was dismissed and costs aw…
10 Jan 2007

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT

Citation

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV353/2006

The Court held that the alleged contemporaneous oral agreements to render the cheques conditional or to render them meaningless were inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; the cheques had been delivered (not held in escrow) and no valid defence or triable issue was established, so summary judgment on the dishonoured cheques was properly entered and the appeal must be dismissed.
8 Aug 2006

LIU MON YUN t/a ARTS CENTRE v. LAW YUK YEE

Citation

LIU MON YUN t/a ARTS CENTRE v. LAW YUK YEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4895/2004

There was no express or implied agreement to vary statutory interest; applying s.26 of the Partnership Ordinance the defendant was entitled to interest at 8% p.a. on advances to the partnerships; applying that rate and the agreed principals the court calculated interest and principals, set off the parties' entitlements and rendered judgment for the defendant for the net sum of HKD 68,732.69 with costs nisi to the defendant becoming absolute in 14 days and judgment interest from the date of judgment.
30 Apr 2004

LO WAI MAN AND CHUNG CHUN MING v. CHUNG KIN MING DANIEL

Citation

LO WAI MAN AND CHUNG CHUN MING v. CHUNG KIN MING DANIEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4766/2001

The Agreement created a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Ordinance; an implied term obliging the defendant to render proper accounts was warranted by clause 5 and commercial necessity; the accounts produced were inadequate and the defendant therefore must render a full account; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff on the account claim and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.
23 May 2003

TOPSCA LIGHTING LTD v. LO KAI BUN

Citation

TOPSCA LIGHTING LTD v. LO KAI BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1491/2002

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the defendant's assertions, when viewed against the matrimonial and commercial background and contemporaneous documents, raised credible triable issues as to whether he had been ousted by trickery and as to the purpose of the withdrawals; accordingly unconditional leave to defend was properly granted and the Master's grant of leave is upheld with modification of cost orders.
8 Jan 2003

YAU TAI WAI t/a WAI MING PRINTING & GRAPHIC ARTS CO. v. CHU HON LEUNG t/a WING FUNG HONG

Citation

YAU TAI WAI t/a WAI MING PRINTING & GRAPHIC ARTS CO. v. CHU HON LEUNG t/a WING FUNG HONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ22701/2001

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the Defendant's evidence (invoices showing cost prices, supplier invoices, receipts and payment notations) and rejected the Plaintiff's denial and witness evidence; therefore a partnership existed and the Plaintiff's claim for repayment of deposits was dismissed while judgment was entered for the Defendant on the counterclaim for $10,000, $93,319.70 and $47,352.80 with interest and costs.
12 Feb 1998

CHAN KWONG LAI AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHI FAT AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KWONG LAI AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHI FAT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11808/1996

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Order 14 judgment because the pleadings and affidavits disclosed credible, non-frivolous triable issues as to partnership, alleged loans and repayments and possible equitable set-off; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendant should have leave to defend.
4 Jun 1980

LEUNG YIU KIN v. LEUNG SAN

Citation

LEUNG YIU KIN v. LEUNG SAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/1980

The trial judge erred in admitting and relying on evidence that contradicted the appellant’s pleadings without framing issues or ordering amendment under Rule 25; because the question of repudiation of the partnership agreement and the interests of the other partners were unresolved the case must be sent back for retrial and the other partners joined.