Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reflective loss principle

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2019

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. SIN KWOK LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1719/2018

The court struck out the counterclaim and claim because on the face of the pleaded case the losses asserted by Sin were reflective of losses suffered by Best Year and/or EPL and therefore barred by the reflective loss principle; additionally the pleaded allegations had been previously litigated or were within Sin's privity with Best Year such that res judicata/abuse of process principles applied; the 2019 Action was duplicative and therefore unsustainable.
9 Mar 2017

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6/2014

The claims against the receivers were struck out because, as a matter of substance, the plaintiffs' alleged loss was merely reflective of Accufit’s loss arising from the sale at undervalue; the no reflective loss principle therefore barred the plaintiffs' claims including the pleaded conspiracy and equitable compensation claims, and the injunction claim was unnecessary following the BVI refusals of derivative leave.
22 May 2015

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2014

The court drew a strong inference of impecuniosity from the enforcement history, absence of evidence from plaintiffs, statutory demand and evasion; the Farrer point carried little weight because the appeal was only arguable and not shown to have real and substantial merits; accordingly security for costs was ordered in the agreed sum of $580,000 payable within 42 days, with a stay of the appeal until lodgement and dismissal if security not provided.
12 Sept 2013

ZHONG ZHIRONG v. BOLD PACIFIC LTD

Citation

ZHONG ZHIRONG v. BOLD PACIFIC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP548/2013

Yuen's appointment was valid under the articles and regulation 56; the allegations against Chan concern losses of the subsidiary Bi Yi and are barred by the reflective loss principle and unsupported by evidence; the alleged seizure and loss likewise relate to Bi Yi and the board acted within its authority to protect company IP; therefore there is no serious issue to be tried and it is not in the company's interest to grant leave under s168BC, so the application is dismissed.
17 Dec 2010

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

Citation

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV52/2010

It is not plain and obvious from the pleadings that the reflective loss principle bars the plaintiff's claim against the trustee; the strike-out was therefore inappropriate and must be set aside so the disputed factual and legal issues (including limitation) can be explored at trial.
31 Dec 2009

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1738/2006

The Master held both summonses were without merit because (a) Reyes Js strike out and Costs Order were binding and taxation could not be used to re-litigate substantive issues already dismissed (reflective loss), (b) Hillhead and EY validly authorised their solicitors and that appointment was ratified by directors' written resolution, (c) allegations of maintenance, champerty, fraud and misconduct were not supported by a real, relevant factual issue sufficient to overcome privilege or justify discovery/cross-examination in taxation, and (d) the indemnity principle presumption of Hillheads l…
11 Mar 2008

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1738/2006

The court held the plaintiff's claims against Hillhead and Ernst & Young are claims for reflective loss which should be struck out because the underlying companies (HEL and HICL) have viable causes of action and there is insufficient evidence that the Giles exception (that the companies were disabled from suing) applies; accordingly the claims against the trustee and the firm fail and are dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. SIN KWOK LAM AND OTHERS

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

ZHONG ZHIRONG v. BOLD PACIFIC LTD

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS