Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tracing and restitution

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

The court found that Wu and Tsang (with Zhu) deliberately orchestrated sham FISH and SPR transactions, caused CMED/CMED Tech to pay US$521.8m, and misappropriated funds through Supreme Well and associated entities; Wu, Tsang and Zhu committed fraudulent breaches of fiduciary duty, participated in unlawful means conspiracy and fraudulent trading; various recipients (including Chong, Hao, Bi and numerous corporate entities) were held liable for dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and/or unjust enrichment as supported by tracing and evidence of knowledge or deliberate blindness; Dr Chen was no…
19 Nov 2025

GOLDJET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. RANDAL ALAN WHITECOTTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2018

On the facts the Court found the 1st and 2nd Defendants were the masterminds of a planned joint enterprise that kidnapped the Plaintiff’s director and procured the coerced transfers; the transfers were made in breach of the 1st Defendant’s fiduciary duties and/or by duress; PT Soeria and the Defendants held the remaining funds on constructive trust for the Plaintiff; Plaintiff entitled to restitution of US$1,631,075, tracing, accounts, interest and costs; limitation did not bar the claim.
30 May 2025

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. UNIVERSAL ALL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP210/2025

Default judgment was granted against the Remaining HCA defendants on the pleaded restitution and tracing claims; however the court held that section 52 Trustee Ordinance does not support vesting orders in this fraud/remedial constructive trust context and therefore refused vesting orders, and refused garnishee orders as premature absent a judgment-based enforcement process; costs of HCMP 210 were ordered against the plaintiff, including indemnity costs for the banks if claimed.
17 Mar 2010

YONG WENG CHYE ( 楊榮財) v. HO YU KUEN (何汝權) AND OTHERS

Citation

YONG WENG CHYE ( 楊榮財) v. HO YU KUEN (何汝權) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1303/2009

Court struck out fraudulent misrepresentation claim against D1 and D3 for failure to plead knowledge/recklessness with sufficient particularity; allowed Plaintiff opportunity to re-amend insofar as allegations against D2 might survive if properly particularised; conspiracy pleadings (119 and 120(a)-(e)) and related fraud-based claims struck out unless reversible by exact, tightly-formulated re-amendment within directed timetable; paragraphs 121-124 struck out; costs ordered for defendants with summary assessment directions.
19 Feb 2002

CHINA EVERBRIGHT - IHD PACIFIC LTD. v. CH\'NG POH

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT - IHD PACIFIC LTD. v. CH\'NG POH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV513/2001

The Court upheld the trial judge: the cashier orders were real bank funds and title passed to the plaintiff; the appellant was a participant in a conspiracy that caused the plaintiff's monies to be applied improperly (breach of Companies Ordinance s48 and fiduciary duties); the appellant controlled the company and deliberately concealed his role so limitation was tolled and the claim for account of profits fell within s20(1)(b); conversion and breach of fiduciary duty established; damages and an account including compound interest (monthly rests) were properly awarded; appeal dismissed.
18 Aug 1999

Samuel Tak Lee v. Lee Tak Yan

Citation

Samuel Tak Lee v. Lee Tak Yan
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV118/1999

The Court of Appeal upheld the Section 182 order: where monies in a company are demonstrably trust property received with knowledge attributable to the company, the court may order that specified disbursements to the executors/trustees will not be void under s.182 should a winding up occur, because such dispositions serve the interests of the company and the protection of the trust; objections based on lack of board authorisation, set‑off or the trustee's personal liability do not preclude making such an order and do not amount to relief of the trustee from liability.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

GOLDJET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. RANDAL ALAN WHITECOTTON AND ANOTHER

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. UNIVERSAL ALL LTD AND OTHERS

YONG WENG CHYE ( 楊榮財) v. HO YU KUEN (何汝權) AND OTHERS

CHINA EVERBRIGHT - IHD PACIFIC LTD. v. CH\'NG POH

Samuel Tak Lee v. Lee Tak Yan