Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Constructive trust and tracing

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2024

SHENZHEN HIFROZEN INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD v. SPLENDID JOY CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 894
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3057/2021

Plaintiff established a prima facie claim in unjust enrichment and the Defendant's factual case that the funds were received in bona fide commercial transactions with Sinocell was incapable of belief on the evidence before the court; accordingly summary judgment was entered for US$78,988 on unjust enrichment, while claims in fraud and proprietary tracing over the remaining balance were left to be defended at trial; leave to amend the Defence was granted and interim payment refused.
14 Jun 2023

FAN YIN WA v. LEUNG MEI YEE

Citation

[2023] HKDC 831
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2181/2023

The court granted the section 21 order limited to documents on or after 2 May 2022 because the applicant demonstrated a real prospect that the bank records are germane to tracing the HK$180,000 and the balance of privacy concerns favoured disclosure given the evidence of fraud and the bank’s neutral stance.
28 Oct 2022

PENG YINGZHEN v. ABSOLUTE SKILL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3328
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA641/2022

The chairman’s disallowance of Absolute’s votes at the 1st EGM was made in bad faith and for the improper collateral purpose of entrenching certain directors; accordingly the 1st EGM resolutions are invalid and set aside. The 2nd EGM was valid and its resolutions stand. The AGM resolutions concerning re‑election of certain directors were invalid because those directors had already been removed and the meeting was convened for an improper purpose. Ps’ pleaded proprietary trust claim under PRC‑governed SIHAs does not raise a serious issue to be tried; the 10 June interim injunction was obtained…
28 Jan 2022

LONG HAI HONG v. CHAN YU, LYDIA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 339
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3179/2013

Because there is a substantial overlap of the real issues (beneficial ownership of disputed shares, nominee/trust arrangements, identity and funding of investments, relationship among key protagonists) and of the key parties and witnesses across the four actions, and because the applications were not premature given defined pleadings and existing affirmations, consolidation for a joint trial was justified to save costs and avoid inconsistent findings; no sufficient evidence of irremediable conflict or unfair prejudice was shown, therefore the summons for a joint trial was granted.
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 195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1564/2015

The court held that as a matter of Hong Kong and applicable Mainland factual/legal analysis the participating employees were the actual beneficial owners of the relevant CSI shares from 11 April 2005; the equitable interests vested in the employees (fixed trusts or proprietary rights) and could be inferred from the scheme, documents and conduct; the BVI discretionary trusts executed on 28 November 2005 could not defeat or retrospectively extinguish those pre-existing fixed equitable interests and were therefore ineffective as against the plaintiffs; the 2008 Confirmation did not constitute in…
26 Oct 2015

CHEER SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SIU FAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEER SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SIU FAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA780/2015

Weighing the evidence and submissions the court found the plaintiff and defendants each presented partial truths; there was insufficient good arguable case and/or risk of dissipation to continue the Mareva injunction against D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and TP3, but there was a sufficient arguable case and risk to continue the Mareva injunction as to D6-D9, TP1 and TP2; the proprietary injunction variation was not made because tracing to consultant fees or to Mak was not established and the claim against many defendants remained for damages and was not proprietary.
27 Jun 2008

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2114/2007

The 1st and 2nd Defendants failed to discharge the burden to show that Shenzhen is clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; significant juridical advantages available in Hong Kong—compulsory discovery and interrogatories, higher realistic recovery of damages, remedies such as constructive trust, tracing, exemplary and mandatory injunctions and indemnity costs—would be lost in Shenzhen and collectively create a real risk that the Plaintiffs would not obtain substantial justice there; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SHENZHEN HIFROZEN INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD v. SPLENDID JOY CORPORATION LTD

FAN YIN WA v. LEUNG MEI YEE

PENG YINGZHEN v. ABSOLUTE SKILL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

LONG HAI HONG v. CHAN YU, LYDIA AND OTHERS

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

CHEER SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SIU FAN AND OTHERS

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS