Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation dispute

Legal area

Court

22 May 2025

HERAEUS LTD v. CHU KENG MING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1324/2024

The court ordered sale of the 1st Property because the plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to enforce the charging orders, the asserted 20% beneficial interest by Thomas was rejected as unsubstantiated and raised too late and not by a party, the defendant's alternative proposals were not credible or timely, and the plaintiff's valuer's reserve price of HK$54,900,000 was a lawful and acceptable starting point with the market to determine the actual price; accordingly sale is necessary to satisfy the outstanding judgment debts and indemnity costs are payable by the defendant.
25 Apr 2025

BGA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA631/2022

The application is dismissed because, although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on liability (including for the Lohas Transaction), they failed to demonstrate a good arguable case on quantum in relation to the Ausca Transaction (FTI valuation flawed for ignoring the post‑valuation 'Fundamental Change') and failed to show objective evidence of a real risk of dissipation; delay and balance of convenience therefore preclude Mareva relief.
20 Feb 2024

CAO SHUHUI v. DACHENG GROUP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP587/2023

The court held the Plaintiff raised serious issues to be tried: material concerns existed about the valuation reports (possible ex post facto preparation and undervaluation), unexplained disposal of the company’s sole asset leaving the company assetless, deficiencies in evidence about custody and remittance of the sale proceeds, and disputed signatures on transaction documents. On that basis and applying the low threshold for leave, the court granted leave to commence the derivative action against Mr Gao. The court refused leave to sue Henan Shi Shang in Hong Kong because the share transfer a…
16 Jan 2023

KWAN KWOK KI v. WONG TUNG HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1343/2014

The court allowed the defendants' summons for pre-trial examination of Mr Lam under Order 39 r 1(1) because his evidence is central and material to the pleaded No Loss Defence, he is the only witness who can give direct evidence on key facts, the quantum is substantial, and his advanced age combined with the COVID-19 pandemic creates a real risk of non-attendance; the order is conditional that any deposition is only receivable at trial upon proof that the witness is dead or unable through sickness or infirmity to attend, thereby balancing necessity against prejudice to the plaintiff.
12 Jul 2022

WANG FANG FANG v. CHINA ASIA GROUP (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1339/2020

The 1st Defendant raised credible triable issues—material inconsistencies, absence of negotiation, competing valuations and plausible explanations for the contemporaneous documents—such that summary judgment and interim payment were inappropriate; leave to defend was granted and the Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
20 Apr 2022

CHINACULTURE.COM LTD v. LAM TING BALL, PAUL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2902/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the defendants committed wilful default or acted for an improper purpose; deficiencies in process and documentation showed slipshod corporate governance but not the required conscious or reckless indifference to duty; inclusion and valuation decisions fell within commercial judgment and the claimed causative loss was not established; action dismissed.
7 Feb 2022

KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID, the executor of the last Will of KUNG WONG SAU HIN, deceased v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 333
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCED1/2011

The court held that the costs order at paragraph 73 was an absolute/final order and not an order nisi because the court had invited submissions on costs at the hearing and there was no indication the costs order was intended to be provisional; although the court may vary an unsealed/unperfected order in exceptional circumstances, the factors relied on by the Defendant (delay, piecemeal disclosure, doubts about oral evidence) did not justify depriving the Plaintiff of costs for the Loans issue given the Plaintiff's partial success and substantial reduction achieved. The Order was varied only t…
22 Feb 2021

TANG KAI MING KENNETH AND OTHERS v. LAU MAN SANG JAMES

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1462/2012

The court accepted the plaintiffs' witnesses and documentary annexures as credible and probative, held the Settlement Agreement recorded final agreed accounts and was binding; rejected defendant's claims of oral collateral agreements, misrepresentation, duress and mistake for lack of credible supporting evidence; held Kency Brothers' loans carried agreed interest at 1% per month and were enforceable; thus judgment awarded to plaintiffs and Kency Brothers for specified sums with interest and costs to plaintiffs.
3 Jun 2020

EASY ONE FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS v. LUK WING KEE ANDREW AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA421/2020

The court granted the mandatory interlocutory injunction ordering mortgagors to deliver vacant possession and restraining occupation pending trial because plaintiffs established a serious question to be tried, had real prospects of success, would suffer irremediable prejudice if injunction refused, cross-undertook damages, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured granting relief; mortgagors remain able to pursue damages for any undervalue at trial.
16 Nov 2018

RE SIU KONG FAI

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2504
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4243/2017

The Debtors' asserted crossclaim lacked substance because their evidence was outdated, speculative or relied on incorrect assumptions (notably a valid hotel licence). Independent professional valuations contemporaneous with the sale supported the sale price on appropriate forced-sale/repossession and market bases. The Receivers acted as agents of Kingsway and the Petitioner was not liable for any alleged undervalue. Therefore the petitions succeed and bankruptcy orders should issue.