Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Clean hands doctrine

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2024

FUNG CHEK FAN AND OTHERS v. FUNG YIU TUNG, Executor of Estate of FUNG HON, Deceased

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP600/2019

The court found on the facts and contemporaneous documents (1999 Deed of Gift, 2004 Family Agreement, Tomlin Order, 2009 Assignment, 2016 Agreement and evidence of contributions) that each Plaintiff including Grace holds a 25% beneficial interest in the Property. The clean hands doctrine did not bar relief because the alleged misconduct was not shown to have the immediate and necessary relation to the relief sought and could be 'washed' by subsequent conduct; the Defendant failed to prove the property tax claim and most of the counterclaim was dismissed. The court ordered sale under the Parti…
28 Aug 2024

JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD (In liquidation) v. FAMEWAY FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1497/2022

The Default Judgment was set aside because Joy Rich demonstrated a real prospect of success on arguable legal grounds that the Fameway loan and mortgage could be void or avoidable as entered in breach of fiduciary duties by a shadow director; defences based on attribution, clean hands and restitutio in integrum did not, on the material before the court, outweigh the merits or justify refusing relief; strike-out challenges lacked the necessary clarity to dispose of the SOC and Lau's strike-out application was dismissed.
15 Feb 2024

CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA v. CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHING CHI SAU, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1643/2021

The Order Absolute was properly made because Wilson Chan J’s earlier order had earmarked HK$1,638,000 as beneficially held for Secina so the bank held the Amount on her behalf and an enforceable equitable charge could be imposed to secure the undisputed judgment Sum; the trust character of the funds and any potential circularity did not prevent enforcement; allegations of inequitable conduct by Andrew did not, in light of his assurance to the court to release the Amount minus the Sum within 14 days, justify setting aside the Order Absolute; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
5 Oct 2023

CHINOVATION LEASING LTD v. ZHU LINSHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA985/2021

The court found there are serious issues to be tried both as to whether the Transfer of CEIL was at an undervalue and whether the 16 June 2020 board resolutions and appointments complied with CEIL's Articles; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo because of a real risk of dissipation and uncertain recoverability in damages; the plaintiff's delay and imperfect conduct did not render it unjust to grant interim relief; accordingly interlocutory injunctive relief was granted against Interstellar, LC and Sands with limited provisos and costs ordered to the plaintiff.
14 Dec 2022

HUI (ANNIE) GUO v. YUEDONG XU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2019

The court allowed the amendment application in large part because delay and the alleged prejudice were not sufficient to bar amendment absent a trial date and where prejudice appeared compensable by costs; the challenged pleas were not plainly defective and raised issues properly for trial; evidentiary matter in specific paragraphs was disallowed as inappropriate for pleadings.
28 Oct 2021

SZE KA WAI v. CHOY WAI KA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1825/2018

Defendant's appeal was at best arguable but not strong; his asserted risk of the plaintiff disposing of or encumbering the property was speculative and unsupported by evidence and insufficient to justify depriving the plaintiff of the fruit of judgment; accordingly the stay was dismissed and, having satisfied section 25A conditions and with the defendant refusing to comply, the court granted the plaintiff's execution application to effect transfer and refused any interim stay.
25 Oct 2021

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW352/2014

The petitioner had not pleaded the additional facts it sought to rely on to challenge the clean hands defence; therefore the court would not order the broad specific discovery sought. The judge's refusal to order further discovery and to limit the discovery period was a discretionary case management decision without error warranting appellate intervention; leave to appeal was refused and the interlocutory application dismissed.
19 Aug 2021

HWANG JOON SANG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1529/2019

The plaintiffs established at least a good arguable case that justified continuation of the worldwide Mareva and proprietary injunctions; the alleged non-disclosures were either not material or innocent, and on the totality of circumstances the court would exercise its discretion to continue/re-grant the injunctions; consequently the Discharge Summons was dismissed and the injunctions maintained, with costs to the plaintiffs on a nisi basis.
3 Oct 2019

CLEAR SUCCESS LTD v. 北京北大高科技產業投資有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1092/2019

The application for a summary declaration was refused because the evidence raised serious, unresolved issues going to the Court's discretion in equity: potential connectedness of the parties and use of nominee arrangements to circumvent PRC restrictions, the Zhongjiang Court's decision upholding the PRC freezing order and its legal findings under PRC regulations, lack of explanation or evidence addressing those findings, and concerns that the declaration might be used to influence foreign proceedings; these issues precluded a summary, uncontested declaration and required a full evidentiary he…
26 Nov 2018

HARBOUR FRONT LTD v. MONEY FACTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1987/2018

The court found Harbour Front had shown a good arguable case that it had taken real steps to remedy past breaches and that sale of the Yau Tong Property before determination of the petition would likely render any successful relief nugatory; damages were inadequate in the quasi‑partnership context and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo by restraining sale pending trial, therefore an interlocutory injunction restraining sale or disposal of the Yau Tong Property unless with Harbour Front's prior approval was granted.