Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allegation of fraud

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2024

DOUBLE PROOF LTD v. HO KWOK WING

Citation

[2024] HKCA 598
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP372/2023

The Court refused admission of the proposed new evidence because the primary Ladd v Marshall requirement that it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence was not satisfied (no adequate explanation for late discovery and the survey report post‑dating trial lacked justification and would not materially affect credibility findings); the fraud allegation was unpleaded, unsupported and plainly groundless; consequently the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
21 Jul 2023

PHCM v. KP

Citation

[2023] HKFC 139
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9325/2020

Leave granted because the evidence established that it was in the child's best interests to study in the USA: the child clearly and consistently wished to do so, the social worker recommended it after thorough investigation, practical accommodation and financial support were in place, the mother's undertaking to care and return the child was credible, and the father's serious allegation of past fraud was unsubstantiated and unreasonable; accordingly the schooling plan was workable and preserved access.
17 Jul 2013

古信誠對捷衡有限公司

Citation

古信誠對捷衡有限公司
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE331/2013

The Tribunal concluded the 2011 written lease validly replaced the earlier agreement and expired on 31 March 2013; the respondent failed to prove non‑service, fraud or any lawful basis to overturn the decision; the review grounds had no real prospect of success and the original 19 June 2013 decision was upheld.
17 Mar 2011

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES

Citation

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2009

The applications were dismissed because the asserted new evidence did not constitute matters occurring after the judgment nor did it amount to prima facie evidence of fraud, the proposed witness was available and could have been called with reasonable diligence at trial, and the requirements for leave to appeal under section 22 Cap. 484 were not met; accordingly leave to appeal and the stay were refused and costs were awarded.
5 Jun 2009

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2008

The Court refused leave to appeal because it concluded the action was not fit for an Order 14 application; given that conclusion, any interlocutory appeal on the proper scope of Order 14 would be academic and therefore leave was refused.
16 Jun 2008

KARAHA BODAS CO LLC v. PERSUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYDAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA

Citation

KARAHA BODAS CO LLC v. PERSUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYDAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2003

The court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs because Pertamina offered no satisfactory explanation for failing to rely on the documents earlier, the fraud allegations were belated and lacked requisite merit, and the defendant's pattern of prosecuting parallel litigation to resist enforcement demonstrated special and unusual features justifying indemnity costs.
9 Oct 2007

THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HO EDWARD

Citation

THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HO EDWARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1231/2004

The court held the interrogatories related to other agents and general information irrelevant to the defendant's individual issues, amounted to a fishing expedition and risked alleging unpleaded fraud; accordingly the Master's order to withdraw the interrogatories was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
22 Dec 2006

ANBEST ELECTRONIC LTD v. CGU INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE PLC

Citation

ANBEST ELECTRONIC LTD v. CGU INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE PLC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL82/2000

Both interlocutory applications were dismissed: defendant failed to show by credible evidence that there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay defendant's costs (security for costs dismissed); the discovery requests were in large part irrelevant, amounted to a fishing expedition or involved privileged material not shown to be waived, and therefore specific discovery was refused. The timing of the security application was also a discretionary factor against the defendant. Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Oct 2006

WICKED FASHIONS, INC. v. EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WICKED FASHIONS, INC. v. EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP516/2006

The court ordered discovery because the affirmation's phrase 'a number of orders' constituted a direct allusion to existing purchase order documents and disclosure was necessary to determine whether the arrangement was fraudulent and to dispose of the interpleader fairly and economically under Order 24 rules 10 and 13 RHC.
3 Mar 1999

CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHINA LINK CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP45/1999

Although there was prima facie evidence that the respondent had received advance payments and had denied receipt (potentially fraudulent), the applicant failed to show that, on balance of all circumstances, it was just and convenient to deprive the respondent of its agreed forum; allegations of fraud alone and risk of multiplicity of proceedings did not justify revoking the arbitration agreement, therefore the applicant's application under s26(2) was dismissed.