Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Chose in action

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2022

HMM (HONG KONG) LTD (formerly known as HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE (HONG KONG) LTD) v. MA CHUN KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3798
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA619/2016

The court granted the plaintiff's application and ordered payment out of the HK$500,000 bail money to the plaintiff because the bail money constituted money in court subject to disposal under Order 49 r9, the defendant only had a chose in action and his factual and legal objections were unmeritorious given the unpaid judgment and his misconduct.
19 Sept 2022

LAU YUE SUM AND OTHERS v. HUI SIU KWONG representing the Estate of LAU LEUNG SEUNG, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKDC 993
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1986/2020

The plaintiffs' claim failed because the HK$2.6 million remained an asset of an unadministered estate in respect of which plaintiffs had only an inchoate chose in action and no legal or beneficial interest; therefore they could not maintain claims in unjust enrichment or contract to recover that sum directly from the defendant, and the alternative unpleaded claim was disallowed.
21 Sept 2018

TANG WING HUNG ALBERT FORMERLY KNOWN AS TANG SHUN TAI v. LAW CHAU FAT

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA929/2015

The court struck out the plaintiff's claim because on the plaintiff's own pleaded case the cause of action (a chose in action to recover possession and related proprietorial rights) and the legal and beneficial interest in the property vested in the Official Receiver/trustee upon adjudication in bankruptcy and did not re-vest on discharge; therefore the plaintiff had no locus standi to commence or maintain the present action.
2 Mar 2016

LO KWOK KUEN DANWAY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINSITRATIVE REGION

Citation

LO KWOK KUEN DANWAY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINSITRATIVE REGION
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2792/2013

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Government's statutory deductions under Cap 99 are non-alienable and cannot be surrendered or waived so as to become unsecured claims; pension benefits are choses in action and could vest in a trustee if surrender occurred; estoppel/waiver were not properly pleaded or made out; interest of justice did not require appellate clarification.
15 Jul 2013

LAM CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. The personal representatives of CHOI CHUNG FUN, deceased

Citation

LAM CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. The personal representatives of CHOI CHUNG FUN, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1202/2011

The court held that plaintiffs had established continuous and exclusive possession from 5 January 1978 (or alternatively since the death of the original occupant) such that any right of action by Choi or Toy to recover possession had been time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance and, by section 17, the registered owners' title was extinguished; specific performance was refused as impossible because the Property had been lawfully resumed and rights extinguished, and the plaintiffs were denied a declaration that they had acquired legal title by adverse possession (court limited relief to decl…
25 Jun 2010

HKSAR v. LAU WAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC177/2009

The trial judge's acceptance of PW1's evidence was properly reached and entitled to deference; on the totality of evidence the only permissible inference was that the applicant arranged and was party to the ATM withdrawals and EPS transactions and therefore was properly convicted as a principal; the defective wording of Charge 2 concerned description of the property and was correctly amended under section 83A CPRO to 'property belonging to another.'
9 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA861/2008

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of any contact or discussion between the prosecutor and the magistrate that could give rise to bias, and the magistrate's findings that the appellant appropriated the cheques and used the sums for his own purposes were reasoned, supported by the evidence and thus should be upheld.
25 Apr 2008

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI YIP

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI YIP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/2005

The Court held that the applicant by dishonestly arranging and requesting the diversion of HKMA's payment to Company 2 had assumed and usurped the rights of the owner (Company 1) in respect of the chose in action; that dishonest appropriation can occur despite the transfer being effected by the victim or its agent when the defendant's conduct has adversely interfered with the owner's rights (applying Gomez and Wong Cho-sum); and on the facts the elements of theft (appropriation, property belonging to another, dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive) were proved, so the conviction stands.
1 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN CHIN HUNG, ANDERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHIN HUNG, ANDERS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC163/2003

The court refused to grant a certificate under section 32(2) because the questions posed were not matters of great and general importance for which the court should grant a certificate; accordingly no certificate was issued.
20 Sept 2002

HKSAR v. YUEN KWOK FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN KWOK FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2002

The Court held the trial judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the applicant obtained the chose in action represented by the HK$1.65m and acted dishonestly in doing so; R v Preddy did not assist the applicant because the facts showed the applicant withdrew and converted the funds; the conviction was therefore safe and leave to appeal was refused.