Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partnership liability

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2023

ABEROPE PROPRIETARY LTD v. HAO, JIMMY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA629/2021

The Philippine travel record reliably established that the 2nd Defendant was not in Hong Kong when the writ was served; accordingly service was ineffective and the default judgment entered on 24 August 2021 was irregular and must be set aside as of right; the 1st and 3rd Defendants have locus to apply because of joint and several liability as former partners and no prejudice to the Plaintiff was shown to justify refusal.
14 Oct 2022

葉少博對麥恩信及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1144
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ156/2017

Plaintiff's claim was dismissed because he failed to produce reliable documentary evidence to support asserted purchase costs and sales receipts, made substantial late amendments without supporting documents, could not identify which receipts he sought, and his overall evidence was unreliable; defendants' evidence was accepted and second defendant was not a partner.
10 Jun 2021

SKK (H.K.) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSUI PO HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP934/2019

The court ordered sale of the charged property because defendants admit inability to pay the judgment debts, there is sufficient equity after prior registered charges and sale expenses, the prior Legal Charge only affects priority and does not prevent enforcement, the disputes over the 7 cheques and related matters are barred by res judicata or abuse of process, defendants' counterclaims are unproven and largely time‑barred, and the late summons to set aside the charging order and to recover title deeds is unsupported; accordingly an order for sale with a specified reserve and costs direction…
26 Nov 2018

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANG HIN MING HENRY formerly t/a TANG & ASSOCIATES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA664/2017

The writ was properly served at the Hewlett Center address and Wong failed to provide convincing and compelling evidence of non-service; Wong's allegation of forgery lacked persuasive supporting evidence and she admitted conduct (signing the account opening form and being held out as partner) that made her liable to the plaintiff as a partner; therefore there was no real prospect of a defence and the Master’s refusal to set aside the regular default judgment was correctly upheld.
30 Jan 2018

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANG HIN MING HENRY formerly trading as TANG & ASSOCIATES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA664/2017

The default judgment was regular because service by insertion into the notified letterbox was proved and the 2nd defendant's unidentified hearsay was inadmissible; the 2nd defendant produced no cogent or expert evidence to show forgery or any obvious differences in signatures and thus failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; alternatively she would be bound by the Firm's liabilities under the Partnership Ordinance, therefore the application to set aside is dismissed.
8 Dec 2011

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A firm of solicitors)

Citation

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A firm of solicitors)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1088/2011

Summary judgment was refused because material disputes of fact and credibility exist about whether the partner acted with authority and whether the transactions were part of the firm's ordinary business, whether the arrangements were sham and whether depositors were complicit; those issues require full trial and cannot be resolved summarily.
27 Sept 2006

TSE FUI t/a TSZ SEE HING YIP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING v. HUNG CHEUNG KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSE FUI t/a TSZ SEE HING YIP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING v. HUNG CHEUNG KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6336/2003

Although the writ was not served in compliance with Order 81 r.3 and the judgment was therefore irregular, the defendants' long, unexplained delay (over two years) and their conduct disentitled them to relief; the court exercised its discretion under Order 13 r.9 and refused to set aside the judgment and dismissed the summons with costs.
10 Oct 2005

LEUNG SIK CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. TING KEI ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

LEUNG SIK CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. TING KEI ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1629/2004

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the parties had discussions and formed a partnership arrangement under which the 1st Plaintiff worked on site, and that the 1st Plaintiff's evidence of an employment contract with the specific wage terms was not credible; however the Defendant failed to prove the alleged undertaking by the 1st Plaintiff to repay loans advanced nor the factual/legal basis for the counterclaim (including authority for Lee/Choi to bind the Partnership to borrow from the Defendant). Consequently both the 1st Plaintiff's claim and the Defendant's counterclaim we…
6 Jul 2004

MOON KEE CHAAN (a firm) v. HO SHU TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOON KEE CHAAN (a firm) v. HO SHU TONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1996/2001

The judge accepted the plaintiff's witnesses and documentary trail (allotment tables and invoice counterparts) as credible and rejected the defendant's witnesses and litigation-era printouts as unreliable; accordingly the plaintiff proved goods were sold and delivered and the 1st defendant, as partner, was liable for $321,958.60 plus interest and costs, with a certificate allowing counsel's costs.
17 Oct 2002

RAINGATE LTD. v. HA KAI CHEONG ANDREW AND ANOTHER

Citation

RAINGATE LTD. v. HA KAI CHEONG ANDREW AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA479/2002

The court found the 1st named defendant negligent for failing to verify a clearly unusual cash payment request and for handing HK$7.15 million to an impostor, and found on the partnership agreement and holding out that the 2nd named defendant was a partner and/or liable by virtue of holding out; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff for HK$7.15 million with interest and costs was entered and the 2nd defendant's appeal was dismissed.