Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide purchaser for value

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2025

YIM TIN FOOK, since deceased (YIM LOK MAN WINNE, appointed by Order dated 10 May 2024 to represent the Estate of YIM TIN FOOK, deceased) AND ANOTHER v. YU CHOR LAI, KONG WAI HUNG and SOU KA LUN trading as WANG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 816
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2020

The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on reformulated questions addressing whether an earlier registrable but unregistered assignment is null and void against a later bona fide purchaser for value who registers under s.3(2) LRO, and whether the answer differs where an intermediate gift intervenes or where only part of the land is later sold and registered.
15 Jul 2025

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. GAN YUQI (ALSO KNOWN AS GAN YU QI) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2992
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA322/2025

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the specific Sum or any identifiable traceable proceeds remained under the 68th Defendant's control and failed to establish an objective real risk of unjustified dissipation by the 68th Defendant; therefore the proprietary and Mareva injunctions were discharged as to the 68th Defendant.
30 May 2025

BRANTNER TRANSPORTS SLOVAKIA, S.R.O. v. KYOMURA ELECTRONICS (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1347/2023

The Court held that the Default Judgment was irregular because the Amended Statement of Claim was served before valid service of the Re‑Amended Writ and before leave to serve out of jurisdiction was obtained, and therefore must be set aside as of right; consequentially the garnishee order was set aside; alternatively, even if the judgment were regular the 7th defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success on a bona fide purchaser/change of position defence on the admissible evidence, and other factors did not outweigh the merits, so relief was granted to permit defence and counterclaim to…
9 Feb 2024

KAM SIU HUNG v. WU CHUAN CHENG BEING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OF THE ACCOUNT NUMBERED 510-190119-833 WITH THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 217
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2721/2022

The plaintiff failed to prove the Subject Sum was her property or traceable to her funds because she did not produce Li's bank statements or adequate evidence to establish the necessary 'at the expense' link; the 1st defendant established a believable defence (loan arranged by Mr Huang, repayment made) raising triable issues including lack of knowledge, so summary judgment was inappropriate; the summons was dismissed and the plaintiff ordered to pay 90% of the 1st defendant's costs forthwith.
12 May 2023

TOBII TECHNOLOGY INC v. HONG KONG TEAM LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1100/2022

Plaintiff made serious allegations of fraud against the 2nd defendant without cogent supporting evidence and then discontinued the claim; applying the general rule and authorities on indemnity costs for unsubstantiated fraud allegations, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the 2nd defendant's costs on an indemnity basis to mark disapproval and because the defendant was forced to incur substantial expense; costs to be taxed by a Master if not agreed.
19 Aug 2022

TAN WAI KEE v. MARSPAN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2577
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1852/2020

Because the earlier judgment established that CS Credit was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and entitled to vacant possession, that finding completely disposed of the causes against CS Credit; accordingly the court properly exercised its power under Order 33 r 7 to dismiss the claims against CS Credit and award costs to CS Credit.
5 Aug 2022

UNA TRADING FZE v. HONG KONG NUMISMATIC PROMOTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1048/2018

The application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show an arguable or strong appeal that would overcome the high deference owed to the trial judge’s factual findings and failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; a conditional temporary stay was permitted to enable the plaintiff to apply to the Court of Appeal within 14 days on undertaking to compensate defendants for any loss of interest.
24 Jun 2022

UNA TRADING FZE v. PAK FEI TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA966/2018

The court found on the evidence that Mega was unjustly enriched by funds fraudulently obtained from UNA and had no credible defence; accordingly Mega (4th defendant HCA 966) holds the sum received on constructive trust and must return it with interest and costs. Conversely, the HCA 1048 defendants (Happy Wise, Hung, Numismatic) proved they sold watches to Mega in a bona fide transaction for value, their witnesses were credible and the allegations of suspicious conduct were speculative and insufficient to displace the bona fides; therefore the claim in HCA 1048 was dismissed and costs awarded…
24 Jun 2022

UNA TRADING FZE v. HONG KONG NUMISMATIC PROMOTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1048/2018

The court found UNA was defrauded and that Mega was enriched at UNA's expense without a successful defence; accordingly Mega (4th defendant) must hold the sum of US$2,330,596.55 on constructive trust and return it with interest and costs. Conversely, the HCA 1048 defendants (Happy Wise, Hung and Numismatic) established a bona fide sale to Mega supported by invoices, witness evidence and video such that UNA's allegations did not prove notice or impropriety; therefore HCA 1048 dismissed with costs to defendants.
21 Jan 2022

TOKIĆ, D.O.O. v. HONG KONG SHUI FAT TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 217
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA381/2020

D9 established sufficient evidential foundation that his receipt resulted from exchange remissions and thus raised arguable bona fide purchaser and change of position defences; plaintiff failed to show solid evidence of real risk of dissipation required to sustain the Mareva element of the injunction; however, the balance of convenience favors continuation of the proprietary injunction to preserve assets pending trial; fortification refused for lack of quantified evidence of likely loss and appropriate security quantum.