Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alter ego doctrine

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2018

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA494/2015

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had no reasonable prospect of success as the relation-back principle did not apply and the claims were prima facie time-barred; s.35(3) does not create an independent barrier to joinder outside the relation-back context; Ground 2 failed to show that the pleadings were inadequately particularised and the pleaded facts were sufficient to support an alternative case of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego.
13 Jan 2017

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3314/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice warranting an appeal; the judge's exercise of discretion under Order 14A and Order 18 r19 was not shown to be erroneous or plainly wrong and the matters raise fact-sensitive issues requiring trial rather than summary disposal.
23 Mar 2007

CHOW SHIU KEI v. LEE WAI JANE

Citation

CHOW SHIU KEI v. LEE WAI JANE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW179/2006

The court granted discovery against the company limited to the books and accounts specified in paragraph 1 of the summons once the petitioner amends the petition to plead the pricing allegation, but refused to order discovery against Ping On Ointment International and refused to order personal discovery against the 2nd respondent because the evidence did not establish that International was the company's alter ego nor that the 2nd respondent had exclusive possession or unfettered control over the company or its documents.
7 Sept 2000

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV192/2000

The court ordered security for costs because enforcement of a costs order against an overseas corporate appellant would cause undue difficulty, delay and expense and the 7th Defendant's apparent Hong Kong funds were frozen by a Mareva injunction to secure damages in the main action and therefore not available for costs; allegations that the injunction caused the impecuniosity did not, on the facts and having regard to merits and alter ego findings, justify refusing security. The appropriate amount of security was fixed at $425,000 and the appeal was stayed until that sum was paid, with dismis…
10 Jun 1999

IU, LAI & LI (A FIRM) v. WONG YUEN

Citation

IU, LAI & LI (A FIRM) v. WONG YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD19/1999

Because the debtor did not deny the creditor's unrefuted evidence of an oral agreement by which the debtor agreed to pay the creditor's legal costs, and because clause 21 only allocated costs between Ambitious Success and PVL and did not preclude a separate agreement, the court concluded there was a binding oral agreement making the debtor personally liable and dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand with costs.
31 Mar 1999

BEIJING TELEVISION v. BRIGHTEC LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BEIJING TELEVISION v. BRIGHTEC LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV314/1998

The Court held the Amended Statement of Claim raised arguable triable issues including a pleaded legal innuendo that the alleged scandal gravely undermined the station's reputation and credibility; those matters could not be resolved as plainly unsustainable on a strike-out application and therefore the appeal to strike out the pleading failed. The appeal was dismissed.
11 May 1998

LAM SHU CHIU v. CHAN KWONG WING

Citation

LAM SHU CHIU v. CHAN KWONG WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6789/1997

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had possession, custody or an enforceable power to produce Polytrade's audited reports and did not establish that Polytrade was the defendant's alter ego or that the audited reports would be sufficiently relevant; therefore the order for specific discovery was unjustified and must be set aside.

Hong Kong Case Law

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

CHOW SHIU KEI v. LEE WAI JANE

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

IU, LAI & LI (A FIRM) v. WONG YUEN

BEIJING TELEVISION v. BRIGHTEC LTD. AND OTHERS

LAM SHU CHIU v. CHAN KWONG WING