Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to injure

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2024

CHIEF FINE INVESTMENTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. KINGSTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3729
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA996/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the ASOC, properly read, fails to plead the essential material facts and particulars necessary to found causes of action against the 1st and 5th defendants (dishonest scheme/conspiracy, knowing receipt and breach of duties). The allegations are scattered, lack timing, agreement terms and pleaded bases for third‑party knowledge; legal defences (eg. D1 was never a secured creditor; s.60 CPO inapplicable) demonstrate the pleadings cannot possibly succeed. Accordingly the claims against the 1st and 5th defendants are plainly unsustainable and are struck out under O…
21 Jun 2024

PURPLE SURGICAL UK LTD v. WIN BILLION INVESTMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1600/2020

The judge found on the undisputed fund flows, documentary evidence and untruthful testimony of Mr Wu that Win Billion and Mr Wu knowingly represented they would perform the SPA and escrow instructions, induced Purple Surgical to pay the Earnest Money, and misapplied funds; deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were established and Mr Wu, as the controlling mind of Win Billion, is personally liable; conspiracy involving Smart Up was also made out; judgment was entered for Purple Surgical for USD9,523,231.40 and existing injunctions were continued with costs ordered on an indemnity basis (cer…
31 May 2024

CHINA JIANXIN CREDIT SERVICES LTD v. CHINA WAH YAN HEALTHCARE LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA274/2020

The pleaded representations were, on the evidence and in context, non-actionable statements of opinion and commercial judgment rather than false statements of fact; accordingly the fraudulent misrepresentation claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was rightly struck out, the dependent conspiracy claim failed, summary judgment for CJCS stands, and the proposed re-amendments were refused for delay and legal unsustainability; costs awarded to CJCS on an indemnity basis under Clause 13 with PRG and LSM to recover on standard party-party basis.
6 May 2024

MAMMY PANCAKE COMPANY LTD v. CARLA DAY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1044/2021

Given the franchise relationship, the strategic importance of the Michelin‑awarded Shop, and specific communications that Plaintiff would take the lease if franchisee did not renew, lease negotiation information fell within the contractual duties of confidentiality and good faith; the 1st and 2nd Defendants acted dishonestly by misleading Plaintiff and facilitating the 5th Defendant to take the lease, thereby breaching those duties and causing loss; damages for lost profits assessed at $3,803,782.32 and exemplary damages of $300,000 awarded; costs to plaintiff awarded.
12 Apr 2024

CROWE, CHRISTOPHER PAUL ANDREW v. WEN XINGSHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1732/2022

The Court set aside the Default Judgment under O13 r9 because the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim was so defectively pleaded—failing to plead essential particulars and elements of fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy—such that the claim was liable to be struck out; in those circumstances it was a proper exercise of the Court's discretion to allow the 1st Defendant's appeal, set aside the Default Judgment and grant leave to file an Acknowledgment of Service and Defence, with specified costs directions.
24 Nov 2023

CHAN CHUNG SING v. QUPITAL LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA40/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff cannot avoid the consequences of the earlier dismissal for non-compliance by blaming his solicitor; established authorities attribute solicitors\' default to their clients, and a second action based on the same cause after dismissal for non-compliance is an abuse of process absent special reasons, which the plaintiff failed to establish. Further, pursuing this appeal while relief from sanctions in the earlier action remains available constitutes an abuse and would permit impermissible re-litigation and circumvention of sanctions.
5 Sept 2023

HONG KONG VENDING SYSTEM COMPANY LTD v. LUI KIN MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5064/2022

Court struck out the 2nd defendant's claim in its entirety and struck specified paragraphs and reliefs because the Amended Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts against the 2nd defendant (speculative inferences, lack of particulars) and the sole remaining monetary claim against her (non-compete) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal; conspiracy and causing loss by unlawful means were inadequately pleaded and struck out; certain restrictive covenant and confidence claims against the 1st defendant survived as fact-sensitive and arguable.
12 Jul 2023

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HK) LTD v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO., LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA356/2022

The court ordered HCA 356 to be stayed pending resolution of HCA 309 upon CCCI giving an undertaking because (1) the Trust/Title issues are already raised in HCA 309 and can be determined there, (2) trying HCA 356 in parallel would cause duplication, unnecessary costs and risk inconsistent findings, and (3) no exceptional circumstances or special grounds justified ordering the Title/Trust Issue to be tried as a preliminary issue excluding other HCA 309 defendants.
20 Jan 2023

ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD v. EXCELLENCE RAISE OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2017

On the evidence the 83 warehouse receipts were forged; CH, MW and Wong knowingly participated in a scheme to deceive and are liable for deceit and conspiracy; funds paid by plaintiff can be traced to payments received by ERO, JA and HE (and to ZH/ZT) and those recipients were unjustly enriched at plaintiff's expense; ERO, JA and HE hold the identified sums as constructive trustees and must account and repay; Ko and Siu lacked sufficient knowledge and are not liable.
28 Jul 2022

TAIHEI DENGYO KAISHA, LTD v. BOK JOENG HONG KONG CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA88/2022

The court granted default judgment against D1 for the Total Sum and a declaration that D1 held the sums on constructive trust because the pleadings and circumstances warranted declaratory relief without a full trial to protect a fraud victim; the court set aside the earlier default judgment against D7 because on the pleadings D7 had only received US$45,000 and the additional materials filed by plaintiff were unpleaded and could not be received on the application, and therefore entered a new default judgment against D7 limited to US$45,000 with a declaration of constructive trust and left dama…