Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies and costs

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

中國國際技術合作集團有限公司對傅明

Citation

[2025] HKDC 352
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4148/2020

Defendant breached fiduciary and fidelity duties by unauthorisedly closing the company bank account and removing company funds; plaintiff proved causation for a limited period of loan interest incurred due to that act and proved unauthorised payments; immediate dismissal under s9 was valid so defendant is not entitled to notice pay; counterclaims for fees and custody charges fail; award limited to HK$6,710.92 (interest) and HK$89,411 (unauthorised payments) plus interest and costs at 20%.
8 Jul 2024

TEMPOROSA, MA. CARLA ARANGOTE, THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GUTING, JOAN SARMIENTO, DECEASED v. CHOY CHIU YEE RITA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 747
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO13/2019

On the balance of probabilities the respondent had decided to dismiss the employee for legitimate reasons (poor performance and discovery of photos) before knowledge of the illness; contemporaneous evidence (WhatsApp, CCTV, audio) supported that reasoning; the deceased's hearsay statements and friends' accounts were given little weight; 30 April 2017 was a rest day not a sickness day and therefore s33(4B) did not apply; there was no proven harassment or discrimination on the ground of disability and no breach of the implied term; all claims dismissed.
14 Jun 2024

POON LO WAH LAURA AND ANOTHER v. POON YUET WAH, both in her personal capacity and in the capacity as an Administratrix of the Estate of Poon Wong Sui Sum (潘黃瑞心) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1541
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA702/2017

The court found the sale was below the agreed market value and there was no evidence of marketing, independent valuation or competition; the administratrix sold to a related party, delayed and mismanaged completion, mixed and misapplied proceeds and failed to account — constituting breach of fiduciary duties; the daughter had actual and blind-eye knowledge of the circumstances and dishonestly assisted the breach; accordingly the sale was set aside, vacant possession ordered and accounting and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
1 Mar 2024

黃智鴻對曾立民經營深情公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2023

Allowing witnesses to introduce new oral evidence that was not in their witness statements and then relying on the appellant's prior drinking for credibility constituted procedural unfairness and a legal error; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the tribunal's order is set aside, with no costs and no remittal because the parties agreed not to pursue their claims.
30 Nov 2023

CHEUNG KWAI CHI v. KING CHARTER ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1365/2017

On the evidence and credibility findings the court accepted the Defendants' account that the Plaintiff agreed in or around November 2008 to sell her 20% beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties for HK$2,304,875 and that the Defendants paid that sum between 20 November and 23 December 2008; the Defendants discharged the burden of proof on the Buy Out Agreement; accordingly the Plaintiff ceased to have any beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties from 1 December 2008 and her claim is dismissed.
27 Jul 2023

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SANJAY KHANDURI

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1007
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1068/2022

The counterclaim was struck out because, as a matter of statutory construction and public policy, the Banking Ordinance and the cited HKMA guidance and regulatory materials do not confer private causes of action on individual customers; the PDPO allegation caused no compensable damage on the pleaded evidence; and the reliefs sought are legally non‑viable, making the counterclaim plainly unarguable.
30 Nov 2020

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. HUI CHI YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1423/2015

On the evidence the court found that CNCG provided continuous and substantial financial support to Wing Hong such that Wing Hong was neither insolvent nor likely to become insolvent as at 31 May 2008 or during the Relevant Period; accordingly the creditors' interests duty was not triggered, the floating charge was properly treated as created and registered, the Transfers were repayments of genuine intercompany loans and the Defendant Directors did not breach fiduciary duties; knowing receipt and CPO s.60 claims therefore fail and the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
24 Nov 2020

KWOK HIU KWAN v. JOHNNY CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 972
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV202/2019

Article 74 must be given effect: the chairman's decision whether votes should be counted at a particular meeting is final and conclusive and is not subject to being set aside for Wednesbury unreasonableness; an implied qualification allowing review for mere unreasonableness is neither necessary nor obvious; the appropriate and limited ground for judicial intervention is bad faith or exercise of the power knowingly for an improper purpose.
4 Sept 2020

GAIN WEALTH GLOBAL CREDIT & INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN SUK FONG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/2019

Sections 27(3) and 29(10) were engaged in respect of sums charged unlawfully (eg the $37,000 upfront fee) and collusion was established, but payments made to independent fraudsters were not held to be "interest" under s2(1) absent evidence linking those payments to the lender or its agent; "principal" means the amount actually lent and must exclude sums not applied for the borrower's benefit (court reduced contractual principal by $37,000 upfront fee and $100,000 cash cheque to a deemed principal of $863,000); using interest of $337,000 and principal $863,000 produces an effective annual rate…
10 Jan 2020

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & 3 OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 53
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2019

BOR4 does not, on its language and context, prohibit human trafficking generally for exploitation nor does BOR4(3)(a) prohibit trafficking for forced or compulsory labour; BOR4 may cover trafficking for slavery only insofar as traditional concept of slave-trade is engaged, but the separate prohibitions of servitude and forced labour must remain distinct; HKSARG has a positive obligation to provide practical and effective protection under BOR4 but enjoys a wide margin of discretion as to measures and is not under an absolute duty to enact bespoke criminal offences for forced labour or traffick…