Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Place of business

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2024

CMF GLOBAL QUANTITATIVE MULTI-ASSET SPC-CMF CHAOS CHINA GROWTH SP v. BLOSSOM INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1532/2023

On the evidence the defendant carried on business in Hong Kong and had established a place of business at the SCB Address (appointment of a CEO associated with that address, substantial remittances from a Hong Kong bank account, use of the address and telephone in correspondence, and litigation activities handled from that address); accordingly leaving the writ at the SCB Address satisfied section 803(5)(a) and constituted valid service.
19 Mar 2020

NG, CHRISTINA v. CAPELLA CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 442
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW325/2018

On the facts the court was satisfied it was plain and obvious that winding-up relief would not succeed: both companies were solvent with highly liquid principal assets; there was realistic ability on the part of the respondent to finance a buy-out; the Family Court provided adequate and appropriate alternative remedies to resolve the matrimonial and company disputes; accordingly the petitions (including winding-up relief) should not be maintained in the Companies Court and were dismissed by consent, with factual jurisdictional disputes reserved for trial if necessary.
28 Feb 2019

RE DAI GUOLIANG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2343/2018

The Court accepted that the personal presence gateway can found jurisdiction and, having considered the parties' submissions, exercised its discretion in favour of the Petitioner such that a bankruptcy order should follow on establishment of personal presence; it was unnecessary to decide the other statutory gateways once discretion was exercised in the Petitioner's favour.
15 Aug 2014

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2012

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused. The Court held the principle of separate legal personality remains engaged and the activities of subsidiaries or sub-subsidiaries cannot be attributed to the parent BVI company to establish sufficient connection with Hong Kong for jurisdiction under s327(3)(c); the questions raised were either not reasonably arguable or academic and no exceptional circumstances justified leave.
6 Mar 2014

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2012

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the subject company, a BVI holding company whose sole asset was shares in another BVI company, had not established a place of business in Hong Kong for s168A purposes and lacked a sufficient connection with Hong Kong to justify the exercise of the discretionary winding-up jurisdiction under s327(3)(c); accordingly the Hong Kong Companies Court should not assume the exorbitant jurisdiction to wind up the company and the petition was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
30 Aug 2011

SINGAMAS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. AXIS INTERMODAL (UK) LTD t/a SEAAXIS

Citation

SINGAMAS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. AXIS INTERMODAL (UK) LTD t/a SEAAXIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA228/2010

The plaintiff failed to prove that Axis Intermodal (UK) Ltd had established a place of business in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong address. The evidence showed the Hong Kong address belonged to the holding company, which acted as agent; the employee relied upon was employed by the holding company and lacked authority to bind the defendant; contracts were concluded and signed in the UK; and the website and name card were insufficient to establish a local habitation of the defendant. Therefore service under section 338(2) was irregular and the master correctly set aside the default judgment and serv…
14 Aug 2007

HO TAI KWAN v. GLOBAL INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS INC

Citation

HO TAI KWAN v. GLOBAL INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12/2007

The judge found overwhelming evidence (SEC Form 8-K, defendant's website, signed Term Sheet, name cards, transactions and cheques in Hong Kong) that the Mongkok address was a place of business of the defendant within the Companies Ordinance; therefore service at that address was valid and the Master's order dismissing the defendant's application was correct.
29 Mar 2006

KIM ENG SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

KIM ENG SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA7/2004

The Court held that the appellant's share of commission and related income arose in or was derived from Hong Kong because the appellant had Hong Kong contracts with clients, billed clients from Hong Kong (generated bought/sold notes there) and performed the profit‑making activities in Hong Kong; appeal dismissed.
5 Jun 1996

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. BARTICA INVESTMENT LTD.

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. BARTICA INVESTMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/1994

On the facts the taxpayer, a company incorporated to make profits, put its assets (deposits) to gainful use by placing deposits and pledging them as security for loans to the hotel company over a sustained period; that conduct constituted carrying on a business in Hong Kong and the interest from Hong Kong deposits (and Citibank Hong Kong deposits from 1986) was chargeable to profits tax under ss.14 and 15(1)(f); the Board's contrary conclusion was unreasonable and set aside, with a residual issue reserved concerning deposits held in Citibank Singapore and Hongkong Bank Singapore.
22 Apr 1994

ELSCINT (ASIA-PACIFIC) LTD v. COMMERCIAL BANK OF KOREA LTD

Citation

ELSCINT (ASIA-PACIFIC) LTD v. COMMERCIAL BANK OF KOREA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL7/1994

Where a foreign bank's Hong Kong office is limited to promotional/public relations activities and does not itself transact business that creates legal obligations, that office is not a 'place of business' under s.338 and s.341 and service of a writ at that office is invalid.