Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2025

SOREMI INVESTMENTS LTD v. CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6417
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2025

On the facts the court properly construed clause 13.17 of the SHA and concluded SIL's pleaded causes, including conversion and tortious claims, do not require determination of clause 4 and therefore do not fall within the arbitration clause; the Fiona Trust presumption is displaced on these facts; CNG's proposed grounds lack reasonable prospects of success and no other interest of justice warrants leave; the separate appeal against the Master's order was improperly advanced in this paper application and is dismissed.
9 Oct 2025

SOREMI INVESTMENTS LTD v. CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4768
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2025

The court granted the Mareva injunction because SIL demonstrated a good arguable case on conversion, dishonest assistance and conspiracies; CNG has assets in Hong Kong (notably CGI shares); and there is a solid basis for concluding a real risk of unjustified dissipation given the alleged wrongful transfers, the circumstantial evidence of control and instruction, delay tactics, non-compliance with orders and a BVI contempt finding. On balance of convenience a domestic freezing order is necessary and appropriate; narrowly tailored ancillary disclosure about the manner of holding of CGI shares w…
26 Sept 2025

SOREMI INVESTMENTS LTD v. CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2025

The SHA was a contractual document regulating the relationship between the two shareholders (CNG and Global); SIL was a non‑transacting party named to give effect to shareholder arrangements. The substance of SIL's claims is misappropriation and breaches of equitable/fiduciary duties by directors and associated torts, not disputes arising out of or relating to the SHA. CNG failed to establish a prima facie case that the arbitration clause in clause 13.17 covers those disputes; accordingly no stay under s20(1) was warranted and the summons for a stay was dismissed.
5 Sept 2025

ING BANK N.V. v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 824
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP239/2024

Leave to appeal dismissed because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the challenged grounds; the judge's decision refusing a stay on forum non conveniens grounds was within the proper discretionary evaluative exercise, Hong Kong has a real and substantial connection, the alternative Mainland-law arguments did not render Xi'an clearly or distinctly more appropriate, and the proposed new evidence did not meet the criteria for admission on appeal.
26 Aug 2025

HENGFEI HOLDING LTD v. DUIBA GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1204/2020

On the facts the court found the 25 July 2019 communication amounted to a valid, unconditional demand for return of the share certificate and the 1st Defendant's failure to deliver it forthwith by 7 November 2019 constituted an unequivocal refusal giving rise to conversion and detinue from 7 November 2019 until redelivery on 7 January 2020; the claim against the 2nd Defendant failed for lack of pleaded or proven procurement/possession or material assistance.
13 Jun 2025

林舜如對梁國賢

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3392/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff proved she held the beneficial ownership of Cargo A and Cargo B by documentary evidence and credible witness testimony; defendant had no lawful title or authority to sell or retain the goods and therefore committed conversion; defendant’s counterclaim and third‑party claim were dismissed; plaintiff entitled to damages equal to the purchase price, interest, storage costs and immediate payment of the RMB 1,100,000 court deposit and interest.
17 Feb 2025

WOO TAK YAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA67/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the grounds raised questions of fact and credibility not law; the Deputy Adjudicator properly investigated and made factual findings that EPD acted reasonably, attempted to return the belongings, and acted as an involuntary bailee, so there was no conversion or trespass; there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or apparent bias, and the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
25 Nov 2024

CHOW SUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. CHOW SUI HEI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2018

The 2014 Agreement is a binding family arrangement that was not set aside: Tak failed to prove material non‑disclosure, undue influence or economic duress. Specific performance was ordered because damages were inadequate to protect Yuk’s interest and to give effect to the agreed 4:3:1:1:1 distribution of Third Street net sale proceeds. Tak’s counterclaim succeeded only to the extent of 40% of rental income pre‑2015 (HK$216,240) payable by Hei. In the conversion action Hei unlawfully disposed of goods from Unit 12D; abandonment defence failed; damages for conversion proven but discounted for e…
15 Oct 2024

LEI CHI KANG v. ICONIC ASIA COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1751
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2776/2023

Summary judgment dismissed because there are real triable issues as to whether any enforceable agreement existed between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, whether the alleged loss is company loss subject to the reflective loss rule and proper derivative relief, the quantum and nature of the payments, and because several causes of action are inadequately pleaded or raise arguable defences; accordingly summary disposal is inappropriate.
10 Oct 2024

LAU KWOK HUNG (AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAU WO alias LAU YICK WO, THE DECEASED) v. WH AH JEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1071/2022

The court held the theft averment in paragraph 24 was not plainly irrelevant or bound to fail because damages for trespass can encompass trespass to goods and conversion; particulars could be provided (police report exists) and evidential criticisms did not justify striking out at interlocutory stage. Consequently the Master’s orders striking out the theft allegation and refusing leave to include the police‑report allegation were set aside and leave to amend was granted to include the Proposed Amended Defence and Counterclaim in full, with directions for a draft order and costs assessment.