Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Business registration

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2021

WONG KEAVEN KA HAY t/a HOI SHING SEAFOOD CO. v. CENTRAL INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5753/2017

The counterclaim as pleaded failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against WKKH because it did not plead overt acts capable of establishing that WKKH entered into and implemented a conspiratorial agreement to deprive CIL of the alleged outstanding sum; the pleading was ambiguous as to who the conspirators were and left fraud to be inferred. Consequently the counterclaim against WKKH was unarguably bad and struck out; judgment was entered on WKKH's admitted claim for HK$754,323.38 with interest and costs ordered to the plaintiff (party and party).
15 Aug 2019

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1077
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1479/2012

Order 22 r.18(4) applied because the sanctioned payment was made by one respondent only and the defendants were not sued in the alternative or on several liabilities; consequently the court had unfettered discretion on costs. The applicant and her former legal-aid solicitors acted unreasonably in suing the wrong party given the available evidence and the failure to investigate, so costs consequences were adjusted: the 3rd respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to the first directions hearing; the applicant was ordered to pay the Board's remaining costs for the specified p…
28 Sept 2016

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1479/2012

The court found that the defendants adduced credible evidence of a valid transfer of the business and demonstrated a real prospect of success on the defence that the applicant was not the employer at the time of the accident; coupled with reasonable explanations for default and delay, the merits and balancing of factors justified setting aside the default judgments.
5 Aug 2009

LIU WAI KWOK v. LUI CHI WAI

Citation

LIU WAI KWOK v. LUI CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2009

The appeal is allowed because the three late witness statements are relevant to the live issue of whether the deceased was carrying on a garage business and, although filed late, the court cannot exclude them given the defendant's election to put the plaintiff to strict proof and the statements' probative value.
27 May 2003

HAU SIU WAH v. OR PIK KAN t/a FORTUNE NATURE CRYSTAL

Citation

HAU SIU WAH v. OR PIK KAN t/a FORTUNE NATURE CRYSTAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3986/2001

The judge accepted the plaintiff's credible and consistent evidence of equal contribution, joint stocktaking, joint registration (via plaintiff's representative), consistent equal withdrawals from profits, and payments into the business; the defendant's varying and evasive evidence was rejected. Accordingly the relationship constituted an equal partnership which was dissolved by the plaintiff on 9 August 2001 and the defendant breached fiduciary duties by opening the Wanchai shop using partnership name or funds; an account must be taken including the plaintiff's loan and benefits from the Wan…
27 Nov 2002

BOND SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. YOUNGWAY DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

BOND SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. YOUNGWAY DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT8196/2002

The bailiff had reasonable grounds to believe the seized items were in the defendant's apparent possession on entry; there was no evidence of sub‑tenancy or that Acetex traded at the premises to displace apparent possession; therefore the distraint was lawful and the goods should be released to the plaintiff for execution with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
27 Nov 2002

BOND SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. YOUNGWAY DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

BOND SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. YOUNGWAY DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT8195/2002

The bailiff lawfully seized items because at the time of entry the goods were in the apparent possession of the defendant (as evidenced by the defendant's business registration on the premises, absence of objection at entry, and no evidence of sub‑tenancy or of claimant trading there); therefore under s.27 and controlling case law the seizure stood and the goods were ordered released to the plaintiff for execution with costs.
12 Aug 2002

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. v. XS FASHION LTD. t/a "XS mix & match"

Citation

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. v. XS FASHION LTD. t/a "XS mix & match"
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4727/2002

The bailiff lawfully executed the distraint warrants because, on entry, the visible signage and labelling bore the defendant's trading name and provided reasonable grounds for the bailiff to believe the goods were in the defendant's apparent possession; production of a Business Registration Certificate in the claimant's name alone did not displace that prima facie conclusion, therefore the application to set aside the warrants failed.
12 Aug 2002

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. v. XS FASHION LTD. t/a "XS mix & match"

Citation

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. v. XS FASHION LTD. t/a "XS mix & match"
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4888/2002

The bailiff legitimately relied on his visual observations (signage and labelled goods), supported by tenancy facts (non‑alienation clause and sales returns), and there was no cogent evidence to displace the prima facie conclusion that the goods were in the Defendant's apparent possession; consequently the distraint warrants were validly executed and the Claimant's application to set them aside failed.
7 May 2001

RE: MAK TSZ LOK and EX-PARTE: CALTEX OIL HONG KONG LTD., A JUDGMENT CREDITOR

Citation

RE: MAK TSZ LOK and EX-PARTE: CALTEX OIL HONG KONG LTD., A JUDGMENT CREDITOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4397/2000

Bankruptcy orders were annulled because the petitioner had actual knowledge of the debtors' new address (removal notice and regular statements) yet affirmations misrepresented that the old Shatin address was the last known address and that no other address was available; that misrepresentation meant the court would not have granted leave for filing and substituted service if fully informed, so service did not comply with r46(2) and the orders ought not to have been made under s33(1)(a).