Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accounting between partners

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2022

CHEUNG HAU CHUN v. TO SUET CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1259/2015

With no admissible primary evidence other than the audited financial statements, the proper course was to take the accounts and make inquiries by reference to those audited accounts; without apportionable data the court could not ascertain dealings for partial reporting periods nor find that the 4th defendant received partnership sums; costs were awarded to the plaintiff for the accounts and inquiries except the costs of the excluded expert report.
8 Feb 2022

LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION B OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 19, TAI PO, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA210/2011

On the evidence the parties operated the joint venture in the form of a partnership rather than as principal and agent; Hung had authority to sell developed units in the ordinary course of that business and certain sales (notably sales of units in Lots 154A-D and the Subscription Agreement for units on Lot 2442) bind the partnership; the alleged Lot 154 Agreement and Lot 2441 Agreement were not proved with requisite certainty; assignments to Lawin are to be set aside as not bona fide and many account and reimbursement issues require an ordered accounting and consequential relief reserved.
8 Feb 2022

BEST STAR HOLDINGS LTD v. LAM CHUN HING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA558/2012

On the balance of probabilities the parties conducted the joint venture in the form of a partnership rather than Hung being a mere agent; Hung had usual authority to sell many developed units (notably Lots 154A-D and units on Lot 2442) so those sales bind the partnership; however the alleged oral Lot 154 Agreement and Lot 2441 Agreement were not proved with necessary certainty and were not enforceable; assignments to Lawin relating to Lots 154A-E are set aside insofar as they conflict with valid prior sales; certain development expenses paid by Hung and Li Fu Wing are held to be proper partne…
28 Dec 2015

DAVID NORMAN BRETTELL v. CHRISTOPHER PAUL ERVING

Citation

DAVID NORMAN BRETTELL v. CHRISTOPHER PAUL ERVING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1195/2015

Defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue: the accountants' report and correspondence, including an acknowledged electronic letter dated 11 September 2010, established liability or at least an acknowledgement sufficient to restart limitation; the writ was issued within six years of that acknowledgment; therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the amount claimed subject to any proved set-off and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
3 Nov 2008

HONG KIN KAU v. PERFECT PROMOTIONS CO AND OTHERS

Citation

HONG KIN KAU v. PERFECT PROMOTIONS CO AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2227/1998

The court exercised case management rather than strike out: the 2nd Defendant was permitted to withdraw the summonses, costs of those summonses were reserved, and the action was adjourned for pre-trial and a full trial because the parties agreed to proceed; the court emphasised that the proper remedy between partners is an account and used its powers to fix trial dates and procedural directions instead of granting dismissal for want of prosecution.
11 Sept 2008

KWOK CHI PIN RICKY v. LIN SUK HAN

Citation

KWOK CHI PIN RICKY v. LIN SUK HAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1290/2008

The court ordered dissolution of the partnership on the just and equitable ground effective 11 January 2008 because the evidence demonstrated a complete breakdown of trust and confidence between the partners and ordered inquiries and an account from 1 June 2007 to 11 January 2008.
30 Aug 2006

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT

Citation

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2581/2005

The cheques were regular on their face and the defendant failed to establish fraud or total failure of consideration or any reasonable defence; extrinsic evidence was not admissible to vary the cheques on the basis of a partial failure of consideration, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the defendant liable on the cheques subject to costs order.
11 Dec 2003

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. FENN KAR BAK LILY

Citation

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. FENN KAR BAK LILY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD25/2003

The statutory demand was set aside because the alleged sum was not a genuinely liquidated debt: the claimant's entitlement depended on completion of partnership accounts and there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. Therefore the debt could not sustain a statutory demand; further, issuing the demand in those circumstances was an abuse of process warranting indemnity costs against the respondent.
7 Mar 2002

YUE XIU ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS CO. LTD v. SHING YUK YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUE XIU ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS CO. LTD v. SHING YUK YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10463/2000

The appeal was allowed because there were genuine factual disputes and D1 demonstrated a real or bona fide defence; the alleged admissions in the letters were not conclusive in context and could be explained as being written for record purposes, and consequently the summary judgment/judgment on admission should be set aside and unconditional leave to defend granted so the matters (including potential requirement for an account between partners) can be fully investigated at trial.
11 Mar 1987

SHEN DONG SUNG v. THOMAS TAK SUEN SHUEN ALIAS SHUM CHUK SUEN THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

SHEN DONG SUNG v. THOMAS TAK SUEN SHUEN ALIAS SHUM CHUK SUEN THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1612/1986

The court must first determine whether the plaintiff is a partner; evidence of alleged misappropriation by the 1st defendant is irrelevant and inadmissible at this stage because any monetary recovery requires an account to be taken after the plaintiff proves partnership status.