Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Champerty and maintenance

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2024

CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH AND ANOTHER v. OLDHAM, LI & NIE (A Firm)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3819/2011

Class 1 was voluntarily disclosed and not subject to the implied undertaking; the trustees were granted leave to use Classes 2,4 and 5 for the 1st Purpose (HCA 2587/2017), to use Classes 2,4 and 5 for civil claims against OLN insofar as they relate to trust, knowing receipt, fraud under s.58 BO and dishonest assistance (but not money‑laundering, champerty or maintenance), and to use Classes 2–5 for a complaint to the Law Society; no leave was granted for the trustees to use any Classes for lodging criminal complaints (3rd Purpose) nor for the broad 5th Purpose of unspecified future investigat…
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.
17 Oct 2023

BB v. KO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2661
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2020

Extension of time was refused because KO exhibited substantial unexplained delay (more than two years), his stated reasons (focusing on foreign proceedings, change of lawyers, medical issues) were not credible or sufficient, KO failed to disclose necessary facts to substantiate a public policy defence (notably any Hong Kong litigation), the tribunal had considered and rejected KO's unconscionability complaints, and there was no prima facie basis to refuse enforcement on Hong Kong public policy grounds; accordingly the summons to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to BB.
25 Nov 2021

LI XIAO YI AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1735
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2018

The applicants lacked the requisite legitimate interest to apply for the trustees' removal because they are strangers to the bankruptcy estate (not creditors or contributories) and their grievance — being subjects of a private examination — did not entitle them to a remedy as sweeping as removal; consequently discovery in aid of that removal application was properly dismissed and the application was an abuse of process when it sought collateral attack on an unappealed examination order.
20 Jan 2020

YANG FOO-OI by LEUNG PING CHIU, ROY her next friend v. WAI WAI CHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1739/2010

On objective construction in context a reasonable person would not understand the Gift Documents to include the plaintiff's claims; therefore the defendants' locus challenge fails and the Locus Summons is dismissed. As a matter of law the primary claims (mere equity to rescind and causes grounded in personal fiduciary duties, undue influence and family-arrangement disclosure) were not assignable; absent notice an equitable assignment would not have deprived Yang of locus. Rectification would be available if necessary, but was not required to resolve locus. Joinder could have been ordered but…
30 Oct 2019

REMEDY ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2012

The Plaintiffs proved entitlement to the contract sums as quantified by the single joint expert, the Assignment was valid and prior rulings rejected champerty and time‑bar defences, the Defendant failed to produce evidence to justify deductions or to substantiate the alleged settlement or substandard performance, the purported termination of Contract B was unlawful, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to the awarded sums, damages, interest and costs.
31 Jan 2018

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

The receivership was discharged insofar as necessary because there was a highly material change of circumstances and material non‑disclosure: a large majority of plaintiffs had sold their beneficial interests and been paid (so no longer required the interim protection), the court had not been informed of these transactions or the origin of funds (raising serious questions about who truly controlled the litigation and purchasers), and the purposes for appointing receivers were substantially frustrated; consequently discharge was appropriate and replacement or split‑voting orders were unnecessa…
31 Jan 2018

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

The receivership was discharged insofar as necessary because there had been a highly material change of circumstances and non‑disclosure of material facts: a large majority of plaintiffs had contracted to sell and been paid for their beneficial interests (thereby removing the primary beneficiaries the receivership was meant to protect), the purchase funds originated from an interested party (Tianrui), and material facts were not disclosed to the court when critical directions were given; accordingly the original justification for the receivership no longer existed and the court should dischar…
31 Jan 2018

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2191/2014

The receivership was discharged because there was a highly material change of circumstances and material non‑disclosures: a substantial majority of plaintiffs had contracted to sell and in large part been paid for their beneficial interests (c. 2,090 plaintiffs representing c.306,610 CSI shares) with funds traceable to an interested third party (Tianrui), the litigation and plaintiffs’ instructions were in reality serving purchasers, and the court’s protective rationale for the receivership had been undermined. Given those facts the court exercised its jurisdiction to discharge the receiversh…
31 Jan 2018

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1564/2015

Appointment of the receivers was discharged insofar as necessary because there was a highly material change of circumstances: a large majority of plaintiffs (notably 2,090) had contracted to sell and been substantially paid for their beneficial interests such that the original protective purpose of the receivership had largely evaporated; moreover material facts (sales, origin of funds, funding of plaintiffs' solicitors) were not disclosed to the court when key directions were made, which justified revisiting and discharging the receivership rather than replacing the receivers or ordering nov…