Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate attribution

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2023

SMART EDGE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) v. HG PROPERTY INVESTMENT HK LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2146/2022

HG knew of the relevant authorities and previous admissions that similar writs were not registrable, but nevertheless persisted in registering the Instruments and opposing the originating summons without adequate justification; that conduct amounted to an abuse of the land registration system and justified varying the existing costs order nisi to award costs on an indemnity basis and ordering HG to pay costs of the variation application.
26 Mar 2019

TAM HEUNG MAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG POON COURT (BLOCKS A-F)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 401
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4380/2014

The Notices were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; the defendant failed to particularise and prove justification and failed to establish fair comment; the Notices were published on an occasion of common interest qualified privilege but the privilege was defeated because the defendant (through its chairman) acted with malice—publishing false statements or recklessly without regard to truth and with improper motive—therefore liability for defamation was established and damages, injunction and costs were ordered.
28 Oct 2016

MR DAVID PERRY QC

Citation

MR DAVID PERRY QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2231/2016

Application refused because the points of law for which certification and admission were sought do not arise on the facts (magistrate found controlling director had full knowledge and acted as directing mind), their resolution is unlikely to substantially develop Hong Kong jurisprudence given existing authorities, and the public interest in protecting the local Bar and competence of local counsel outweighs the applicants' claim to counsel of choice.
16 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

The application for a certificate was refused because the contested questions were either settled points of law by authority (so not novel questions of great and general importance) or were challenges to factual findings of the magistrate rather than genuine questions of law; accordingly no certification under s32(2) Cap 484 was warranted.
19 May 2016

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC15/2016

The Court granted leave to appeal on all three specified questions, thereby authorising a full appeal on the scope of 'agent' under s.9 POBO, the construction of 'or other document' in s.9(3) including whether board minutes are included, and the applicability of the corporate attribution principle to POBO conspiracy offences; no substantive determinations on these issues were made at this stage.
13 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA756/2013

The evidence was not sufficiently clear to establish that the crane operator's knowledge, acts or omissions could be attributed to the appellant company and the prosecution therefore failed to make out a satisfactory basis to deprive the acquitted company of its costs; the appeal against refusal to award costs is allowed.
5 Feb 1996

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others

Citation

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL198/1995

The plaintiff was not entitled to the requested particulars because the defence as pleaded fairly answered the points of claim and defendants cannot be compelled to particularise facts or allegations they have not advanced; denials of ownership, licence and knowledge were sufficient; therefore the amended summons for further particulars was dismissed and costs allocated as stated.

Hong Kong Case Law

SMART EDGE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) v. HG PROPERTY INVESTMENT HK LTD

TAM HEUNG MAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG POON COURT (BLOCKS A-F)

MR DAVID PERRY QC

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others