Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standing/locus

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2025

CHEN MING v. CHEN JIAGAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 868
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2553/2024

The writ and indorsement were plainly demurrable and were struck out because the plaintiff, not being a member, lacked standing to challenge breaches of the company’s articles or to pursue fiduciary duty claims save by derivative action; ss.728-729 relief is available only to members or creditors and could not be invoked by the plaintiff; the summons for interim relief was dismissed because it sought relief outside the pleadings, lacked urgency, and balance of convenience favoured defendants; intended plaintiffs could not be joined as they had no cause of action; costs were awarded against th…
18 Jul 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2024] HKCA 688
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP381/2023

The applicant's contention that she was a party or an additional defendant by virtue of service and filings under s2 HCO was not reasonably arguable: the service and acknowledgements showed she was treated as one of the described defendants or a potential defendant, she did not apply for joinder or intervention under Order 15 RHC, and the Substituted Service Order did not automatically confer party status; accordingly the renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant (summarily assessed).
21 Jul 2023

ZHANG RUI KANG AND ANOTHER v. TUNGHSU GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1391/2021

Two separable determinations: (1) HCA 1391/2021 (enforcement of NY judgment) — Company’s summons to set aside Master's leave was dismissed; court found plaintiffs showed a real prospect of legitimate benefit from service out (connections to Hong Kong, prospect of locating assets and using Hong Kong enforcement tools) and no material non-disclosure fatal to the ex parte application. (2) HCA 1359/2021 (claims against Company and directors) — defendants' summons allowed; leave granted by Master to serve out was set aside because P3-P6 plainly lack locus to sue under the Indenture, plaintiffs' di…
31 Jan 2022

YINGGAO RESOURCES LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 306
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA329/2015

Master allowed only the amendments relating to Addition 1 (the Gold Mining Agreement losses) because (1) on the three-stage limitation analysis the GMA pleadings were not, as a matter of law, bound to be time‑barred or to constitute a new cause of action for either the contract claim or the tort claim, and (2) the pleaded causation and remoteness issues could not be said at amendment stage to make the claim bound to fail; Additions 2–4 were not permitted.
1 Nov 2021

TSUI YUN BUN BARRY v. LAW WAN TUNG (formerly known as LAW SIU YI BIBY)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2596/2017

The court dismissed all summonses: ES had standing to apply to discharge the charging orders; the Charging Order Nisi and Absolute were discharged for material non-disclosure by Tsui of Law's insolvency at the ex parte stage; the Charging Order was not regranted because Tsui failed to show ES would not be unduly prejudiced; proposed appeals and extension applications lacked a reasonable prospect of success and were refused; all ancillary costs orders were made and set for summary assessment with specified apportionment and payment directions.
6 Nov 2020

RE LEUNG CHUNG HANG SIXTUS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 893
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP153/2020

The summons was struck out as an abuse of process because the intended party was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings, lacked evidence of authority or equitable interest to confer locus, could not represent the debtor as a non-lawyer, and the appropriate forum for any set-aside application was the Court of First Instance; consequently the summons is dismissed and the court directed further procedural steps regarding possible RPO and RAO, joining the Secretary for Justice as an interested party.
30 May 2019

DICKSON HOLDINGS ENTERPRISE CO LTD v. MORAVIA CV AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2665/2017

Petitioner was not to be struck out for lack of standing because the forfeiture was the conduct complained of; and the respondents failed to show, even prima facie, that the substance of the forfeiture dispute fell within the arbitration clause because the dispute principally concerned company articles and directors' duties rather than rights under the shareholders' agreement, so the stay application was dismissed.
4 May 2018

KOO MING KOWN v. Rev. Mr. MOK KONG TING (President of the Baptist Convention of Hong Kong) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 967
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine and material interest in the subject matter (supported by his former role and substantial donations) such that the court's wide declaratory jurisdiction was properly exercisable; BCHK and Chan are proper contradictors because BCHK (through its Council and Education Department) has duties and powers under its constitution and the Education Ordinance to ensure a fit supervisor and to cause the management committee to invoke removal/nomination procedures; the 2nd defendant, as a salaried Executive Secretary and not a Council member, lacks a sufficient interes…
15 Nov 2016

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL185/2016

The court held that Leung and Yau intentionally declined or neglected to take the Legislative Council Oath in form and substance on 12 October 2016; consequently under s21 ODO they vacated or were disqualified from the office with effect from that date, the President's decision to permit re-taking was unlawful and amenable to judicial review, and the court has jurisdiction to decide these issues notwithstanding the non-intervention principle.
17 Jul 2015

LAM CHI YING v. TO PIK HA

Citation

LAM CHI YING v. TO PIK HA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1930/2013

The court found insufficient evidence of any family agreement to make Wai Hang the beneficial owner of the one share; he was a transmittee/administrator holding the share for his father\u2019s estate. Consequently the petitioner lacked locus under the unfair prejudice petition and the petition was dismissed. The action succeeded to the extent of a declaration that the one share vested in the sole surviving administratrix (Madam Lam) and must be registered in her name; the allotment did not unfairly prejudice the interests of Wai Hang\u2019s estate.