Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authority of company director

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2024

GOLDEN EASY INVESTMENTS LTD v. GLOBAL WAY ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 88
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1416/2024

The Tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the 2024 tenancy was invalid and not binding on the applicant because the director who executed it lacked actual or ostensible authority and the respondent was not an outsider dealing in good faith (family relationship and suspicious timing); accordingly the indoor management rule did not protect the respondent and possession and arrears relief were ordered.
18 Aug 2021

廣東順德展煒商貿有限公司 v. SUN FUNG TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT25/2019

Security application dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the award was manifestly valid given realistic prospects of success on multiple grounds (invalid arbitration agreement/authority, defective notice/service, and material non-disclosure by GD regarding sale of the registered office/property); GD's non-disclosure was material and misleading; there was no evidence NI could cause dissipation of assets to defeat enforcement; accordingly security was unnecessary and unjustified.
18 Mar 2021

HONG KONG TREASURE INT’L LTD v. CHEUNG KIN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1193/2019

The 1st Defendant was not a director of HK Treasure on 15 October 2017 as determined in the s.42 proceedings and upheld on appeal; that determination is final and issue estops the 1st Defendant from asserting otherwise; none of the defences raised by the 1st to 3rd and 9th Defendants created a triable issue or arguable defence; therefore summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 9th Defendants is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Aug 2017

GREAT RICH TRADING LTD v. EASE FAITH LTD

Citation

GREAT RICH TRADING LTD v. EASE FAITH LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA512/2014

The plaintiff failed to prove unjust enrichment because its case rested on untested hearsay and no contemporaneous original contracts, key witnesses with direct knowledge were not called without adequate explanation, and the only contemporaneous corporate minute contradicted the plaintiff's pleaded facts; the defendant's account was supported by contemporaneous documents and credible witnesses, therefore the claim was dismissed.
12 Oct 2015

CHUI & LAU (A FIRM) v. SELLON ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

CHUI & LAU (A FIRM) v. SELLON ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2230/2013

The court found on the evidence that Lei, as sole director, entered into three oral agreements and repeatedly assured the firm that Sellon would pay outstanding legal costs upon sale of the Property; those assurances and conduct bound Sellon by actual and apparent authority; the cause of action accrued on the sale contingency and, in any event, acknowledgements (the faxes) refreshed limitation; the itemised bills were reasonable and not shown to be inflated; accordingly judgment for the firm for HK$462,559.79 with interest and costs was entered against Sellon.
23 Jan 2003

DAO HENG BANK LTD. v. NEW FAITH DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAO HENG BANK LTD. v. NEW FAITH DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1722/2002

The court found the Plaintiff's documentary evidence and affirmations established the 2nd Defendant's liability under the Continuing Guarantee and that the 2nd Defendant failed to raise a credible triable issue (his oral release allegation and clerical mistake claim were bald and unconvincing). The continuing guarantee imposed an independent liability which was not discharged by reductions in the facility limits absent an express release. Accordingly judgment was properly entered against the 2nd Defendant and the Master's order was upheld.
1 Nov 2000

CHAIN YORK INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED v. LEUNG TAK WAI

Citation

CHAIN YORK INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED v. LEUNG TAK WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7319/1993

There was no evidence of express or implied authority by the board for Mr Kan to execute the provisional sale and purchase agreement on behalf of the company; the signature alone, without indication of authority or board resolution or ratification, did not bind the company; accordingly the company's claim was dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim was also dismissed.
10 Jan 1983

DAVID HSU v. PIONEER ELASTIC FABRIC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAVID HSU v. PIONEER ELASTIC FABRIC LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5929/1982

The 1st defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or properly particularised allegation of fraud; the plaintiff's evidence, including the 2nd defendant's statutory declaration and corroboration, established that the loans were obtained for the company's benefit and consideration existed; therefore leave to defend under Order 19 should not have been granted and the appeal is allowed.