Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of funds

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2023

TKM also known as WTKM v. WHG

Citation

[2023] HKFC 30
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5723/2021

The wife demonstrated a bona fide arguable claim that the transfers (two shares and HK$1,000,000) may have depleted matrimonial assets and that the husband’s parents have competing claims; factual disputes as to the purpose of the transfers require trial of the section 17 claim; accordingly joinder of both parents is necessary and just and should be ordered, with costs to follow the event on the summons.
19 Oct 2017

LI PING CHUN, the Co-Administratrix of the Estate of LEUNG FOO SU (or She), the Deceased AND ANOTHER v. LIANG TONGHUA

Citation

LI PING CHUN, the Co-Administratrix of the Estate of LEUNG FOO SU (or She), the Deceased AND ANOTHER v. LIANG TONGHUA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV220/2016

The trial judge's factual findings — including that the mother intended the deceased to succeed the joint-account funds, that the defendant was made joint account holder only to assist management and had no beneficial interest, and that the defendant transferred the funds without the deceased's authority — were not shown to be palpably wrong; accordingly the defendant held the funds on trust for the deceased's estate, the transfers were unauthorized, and the plaintiffs were entitled to an account, payment of sums found due and costs; the appeal is dismissed.
13 Sept 2010

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN

Citation

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1577/2007

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the $900,000 pension was validly gifted by the deceased sister (Siu Fung) to the plaintiff (Chan Siu Lin) by transfer into the joint account coupled with declarations and conduct evidencing intention; therefore the $200,000 paid on 15 August 2003 was made from funds belonging to the plaintiff and, on the plaintiff's credible evidence, was a loan to the defendant repayable on demand. The defendant failed to prove the contrary (that the payment was a gift by the deceased).
4 Nov 2004

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE v. WHAMPAO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE v. WHAMPAO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM268/2002

Tribunal found the respondent unjustified in retaining the disputed sums after termination and that the applicant should have cashed the HK$9.6m cheque; specific deductions lacked evidential support (undercharge HK$18,646.03) and post-termination payments of HK$405,206.91 were improperly effected by respondent and must be refunded; resulting net sum payable by respondent to applicant is HK$6,840,169.25 with interest at one-third of judgment rate from 6 June 2003 until payment.
28 Oct 1986

RAVI KUMAR v. JAIN UMESH CHAND also known as UMESH JAIN

Citation

RAVI KUMAR v. JAIN UMESH CHAND also known as UMESH JAIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6193/1984

On the balance of probabilities the judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence, found the defendant dishonest, concluded the transfers and written acknowledgement established that the loans were made to the defendant personally rather than to the Thai company, and therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for the quantified sum plus contractual interest.
26 Nov 1980

SUKIT PACHIMSAWAT AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

Citation

SUKIT PACHIMSAWAT AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA410/1978

On the evidence the court found the transfer and withdrawal documents were forged but, weighing credibility, conduct and circumstantial evidence, concluded the plaintiffs' account was not truthful and that defendant had proved the plaintiffs' complicity to the civil standard; claim dismissed and judgment for defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

TKM also known as WTKM v. WHG

LI PING CHUN, the Co-Administratrix of the Estate of LEUNG FOO SU (or She), the Deceased AND ANOTHER v. LIANG TONGHUA

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE v. WHAMPAO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

RAVI KUMAR v. JAIN UMESH CHAND also known as UMESH JAIN

SUKIT PACHIMSAWAT AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION