Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of choses in action

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2025

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO-TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that a round‑tripping scheme involving systematic under‑invoicing existed and that the accounting entries for the three pleaded Debts were not reliable evidence of genuine repayable loans; the purported oral assignments were ineffective; the pleaded 2010 Agreement/Convention did not estop Delco or create a binding set‑off; the 1% CT sale was payable at the written contract price (HK$46,883,466) and no 10% oral discount was proved; the Uncapitalised Portion was established at HK$55,501,079 payable by Fang; the CB interest of HK$6,252,000 was paya…
15 Oct 2025

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. HWH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2943/2015

Court found on the balance of probabilities there was a form of round‑tripping/under‑invoicing that undermined reliance on Delco Asia accounting entries; the majority of the alleged Debts (HKM Metal Debt and Chern Debt and large parts of other asserted sums) were not genuine repayable debts and assignments were ineffective; the 2010 Agreement and Convention were not established; CT did not breach the CB Undertaking as pleaded; Delco proved breach of fiduciary duty by Fang for non‑disclosure of USUM negotiations prior to the January 2015 sale and Delco was entitled to equitable compensation of…
15 Oct 2025

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO-TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

On the balance of probabilities the Court found systematic under-invoicing and round-tripping sufficient to discredit major parts of the alleged cross-debts (HKM Metal and Chern debts) and concluded assignments were ineffective; Fang assumed fiduciary duties when he undertook to find buyers and possessed material non-disclosed information about USUM's investment, breached those duties by non-disclosure, causally leading to Delco receiving a depressed sale price; Delco entitled to equitable compensation (market-based assessment); CT's CB Undertaking did not impose an obligation to procure a pu…
4 Sept 2024

WELL HONOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS OF LANDS DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2198/2023

On proper construction of the LRO the entitlement to compensation is vested in the former owner or persons with an estate or interest in the land immediately before reversion and is not transmissible to a third party assignee except where the statute expressly permits; accordingly the Applicant (an assignee) had no enforceable right under the LRO and the substantive judicial review claim is dismissed.
27 May 2020

RE PATRICK COWLEY AND LUI YEE MAN, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF THE COMPANY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 922
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP373/2020

A liquidator does not require the court's prior sanction to enter a funding agreement which either effects an assignment of a chose in action or funds litigation, because such actions fall within the statutory powers conferred by Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 25 (notably para 9) read with s251(1)(b) for voluntary liquidations and s199(3) for winding-ups by the court; court directions should be sought only to resolve discrete legal questions or genuine legal uncertainty, not to approve ordinary commercial judgments of the liquidator.
13 Mar 2017

LIU QIAN v. SUNWAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

LIU QIAN v. SUNWAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA318/2016

The court held that the Instrument and Terms and Conditions, together with the company's bye-laws, created an express contractual entitlement treating the registered noteholder as absolute owner and excluding prior equities; Sunway failed to raise any believable defence that rescission for misrepresentation could defeat the plaintiff's contractual conversion rights at the summary judgment stage; accordingly judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff and quantum was ordered to be assessed.
14 Feb 2017

CHOI YUK YING v. NG NGOK CHUEN

Citation

CHOI YUK YING v. NG NGOK CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1853/2014

The amendment to introduce a constructive trust was a new cause of action not obvious from existing pleadings, was served late without sufficient justification, and would prejudice the defendant by necessitating an adjournment; accordingly leave to amend was refused and the plaintiff was debarred from running the constructive trust issue at trial or in closing submissions, with costs ordered to the defendant.
29 May 2012

MARIGOLD FINANCE LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE AND OTHERS

Citation

MARIGOLD FINANCE LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2263/2011

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a valid oral equitable assignment of the stamp duty refund preceded the 2nd defendant's court order; consequently the unjust enrichment/money had and received claim failed because the 2nd defendant obtained payment lawfully as a judgment creditor under Order 77; the plaintiff's causes of action against the 2nd defendant are dismissed.
16 Mar 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CREATIVE FAR EAST LTD

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CREATIVE FAR EAST LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV277/2004

On the facts the plaintiff, as mortgagee in possession, held an independent legal entitlement to rents and service charges after taking possession; there was no evidence the plaintiff was the assignee of the defendant's alleged overpayments or had assumed the landlord's personal liabilities, and therefore the defendant's asserted equities could not be set off against the plaintiff's claim; the summary judgment and striking out of the counterclaim were correct and the appeal must be dismissed.