Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taking of account

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2019

LAU KOON YING MATTHEW, as the executor of the estate of LAU YIU WING, Deceased v. LAU TARK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2305/2012

Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving proper accounts and documentary support; the court accepts plaintiff's calculations for rental proceeds and finds the Sale Proceeds of $1,084,617 were not received by the Father and are repayable; no credit allowed for construction costs because defendant failed to prove payment or apportionment; as a discretionary remedy for a defaulting fiduciary the court awards compound interest; costs follow the event in favour of the plaintiff.
29 Apr 2019

LAU KOON YING MATTHEW as the Executor of the estate of LAU YIU WING, deceased (“the Deceased”) v. LAU TARK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP23/2013

Defendant Lau Tark Wing failed to provide truthful, contemporaneous accounts and is liable to repay the Father's sale proceeds of HK$1,084,617 and amounts of rental proceeds as calculated by the Plaintiff; no deduction is allowed for construction costs absent proof; compound interest is appropriate for the period and sums to be determined; costs awarded to the Plaintiff for the taking of account.
18 Aug 2017

KONG COLIN CHUNG PING (also known as COLIN CHUNG PING KONG) AND ANOTHER v. KONG WING ON defending by his guardian ad litem MOY NUI CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

KONG COLIN CHUNG PING (also known as COLIN CHUNG PING KONG) AND ANOTHER v. KONG WING ON defending by his guardian ad litem MOY NUI CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2045/2012

The master must perform the taking of account strictly within the Judge's order requiring an account for 50% of market rental of the two properties; the yard is excluded because it is not estate property, the Jordan Property must be valued as basement/ground combined (shop) and first floor separately (office), no repair deduction is applied for the purposes of this exercise, and the master will not determine additional breaches of duty to repair beyond the Judge's remit; parties must agree rental figures and submit a draft order within 28 days.
13 May 2013

J.T. INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BEST ENTERPRISE COMPANY

Citation

J.T. INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BEST ENTERPRISE COMPANY <br><br>
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ76/2012

The Agreement, construed against the factual matrix and specific contractual terms (including timing of commission triggers, promotional expense allocation and deductions), did not cover OEM/private label services; no OEM agreement was proved between the defendant and PARKnSHOP that would give rise to commission payable to the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for OEM commissions is dismissed while earlier judgment for YES brand commissions remains enforceable and an accounting is ordered.
25 Mar 2011

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL

Citation

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2533/2006

The summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the 17 December 2007 letter was too vague to constitute a Calderbank offer and did not justify deferring costs pending the account; accordingly the existing costs order nisi stands and the defendant must pay the costs of the variation, taxed on a party-and-party basis.
13 Dec 2005

WONG KAM WING v. CHENG PUI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KAM WING v. CHENG PUI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3878/2002

Because earlier orders from the Court of Appeal and His Honour Judge Muttrie required an account to be taken and stayed further proceedings until its completion, the three-day hearing was limited to taking of account; the Deputy Judge's use of the word 'trial' did not revive the trial; accordingly the plaintiff's claim is stayed and the action proceeds only for account taking.
19 Jan 1999

CHAN HOW CHUEN, STEPHEN v. CHAN HAU CHEONG

Citation

CHAN HOW CHUEN, STEPHEN v. CHAN HAU CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2436/1996

The appeal was allowed in part: the Master’s paragraph 1 was varied to allow 14 days for discovery; the defendant must provide a detailed account including dates and comply with directions for taking the account; interim payment of HK$691,827 was ordered (interest at judgment rate from 12 November 1996) net of the claimant's agreed allowance of HK$369,473, set-off by virtue of beneficiary status was rejected and stay of execution for that interim rent payment was refused, while the mesne profit interim payment of HK$2,246,150 was ordered but stayed until distribution of the estate or further…
6 Mar 1998

Koo Ho Paul v. Ying Fat Plastic Factory Ltd.

Citation

Koo Ho Paul v. Ying Fat Plastic Factory Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/1997

The Court allowed the appeal because the dispute involved complex and incomplete accounting that could not be conclusively determined on a summary return of the garnishee order; the correct course was to set aside the garnishee order absolute and order a proper account between the garnishee and the judgment debtor so that disputed items could be verified and tried if necessary.