Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accounts

Legal area

Court

5 May 2021

WONG YUK TUNG v. WONG PO LING (also known as WONG PO LING CLARA)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1267
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA899/2012

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the delay (2 years and 257 days) was extremely serious and inexcusable, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, granting the extension would prejudice the plaintiff and further delay recovery, and the application amounted to an abuse of process warranting an indemnity costs order.
5 Mar 2020

CHAN, THERESA SAU FONG v. CHIU IUT NGO, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TONG CHUN BONG, DECEASED

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2020/2017

The administratrix discharged her duty by rendering accounts and providing supporting documents; the disputed shares were sufficiently evidenced as being held by the deceased on trust for the defendant and the plaintiff failed to rebut or establish a prima facie case for further specific discovery; accordingly no further accounts or distribution directions were ordered and costs were allocated against the plaintiff and the estate as stated.
8 Oct 2019

KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) v. WU YUK CHUN JUDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2416
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA350/2013

An interim stay of execution was justified in relation to the Possession Order because without it the appeal risked being rendered nugatory and the applicant would suffer disproportionate inconvenience, but the stay must be conditional on payment into court to protect the respondents; accordingly the court granted an interim stay of the Possession Order until the appeal hearing subject to D1 paying HK$200,000 into court within 21 days and refused stays in respect of the other orders because the applicant failed to show inability to pay or sufficient grounds for those orders to be stayed.
4 Nov 2013

FU SHOU YUAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. FU SHOU YUAN GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

FU SHOU YUAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. FU SHOU YUAN GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2674/2013

The correct reading of s122(1) is that a company must lay the accounts it is required to have prepared as at the date of the AGM; the first year can be an exception where the company properly prepares audited accounts for the period from incorporation to the end of the first complete financial year and lays them at a subsequent AGM within the statutory period, therefore the company was not in breach and no order is required.
15 May 2012

HONGER MUSIC VENTURE LTD v. WOLFMAN JACK ENTERTAINMENT (H.K.) LTD

Citation

HONGER MUSIC VENTURE LTD v. WOLFMAN JACK ENTERTAINMENT (H.K.) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1503/2010

The defendant breached the written agreements by failing to provide final and audited accounts; an implied term requiring audited accounts within a reasonable time was read into the agreements to give them business efficacy; there was no proven partnership between the parties; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff was entered with an order for an inquiry before the Master (or alternatively inquiry as to damages) and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.
31 Aug 2010

ZHANG ZHI RONG v. WENCA DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

ZHANG ZHI RONG v. WENCA DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1446/2010

The court granted the applications to extend time under s111(2) and s122(1B) because the defaults were inadvertent, the ultimate owners were aware and not prejudiced, and the companies gave an undertaking to disclose the order and reasons to The Stock Exchange and prospective investors; the undertaking addressed corporate governance and market disclosure concerns.
27 Jan 2010

BRILLIANT GAIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. FU KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

BRILLIANT GAIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. FU KEE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1064/2009

Application dismissed because defendants failed to produce credible, specific evidence (notably an estimate from an appointed auditor) or any committed intention to procure the accounts, thus no proper basis existed to exercise the court's discretion to grant an extension; costs ordered against defendants with directions for gross sum assessment.
29 Jan 2008

YU SUN SAY AND ANOTHER v. SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

YU SUN SAY AND ANOTHER v. SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2558/2007

The court granted the applications to regularize failure to lay audited income and expenditure statements because shareholders were not prejudiced, the defaults were inadvertent, and directors have been made aware and will comply in future; absence of direct IRD correspondence did not prevent relief although the court prefers such evidence in future applications.
4 Jun 2002

LAM YIM KAM JOHNSON v. LAM YIM HING DAVID

Citation

LAM YIM KAM JOHNSON v. LAM YIM HING DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA642/2001

Leave to adduce the two late affidavits is granted because the new evidence, if genuine, could prevent injustice to the Defendant by showing rental deposit transfers that should reduce the Master's payment order, and any prejudice to the Plaintiff can be addressed by costs and by giving the Plaintiff opportunity to investigate and respond; the appeal is adjourned for that process.
7 May 1999

HEALTHY PEACOCK LTD v. JAN G.W. BLAAUW AND OTHERS

Citation

HEALTHY PEACOCK LTD v. JAN G.W. BLAAUW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5646/1998

The Master's orders striking out the payment claim and the indemnity claim were wrongful because the claims were arguable, involved disputed factual and evidential matters not suitable for determination on strike out, and there was no evidential foundation to justify dismissal; appeal allowed and strike out set aside.