Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate veil

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2024

偉富企業有限公司對李家明

Citation

[2024] HKDC 867
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP178/2023

The court refused the extension of time and dismissed the late appeal because the appellant offered an inadequate explanation for the delay (no contemporaneous affidavit explaining the delay when filing), the delay was not trivial (over three weeks), the appellant's prospects of success were poor given that his defences concerned unrelated disputes with a separate developer entity and did not legally excuse repayment under the mortgage, and the appellant failed to show prejudice that would justify continuing the interim stay; accordingly the interim stay was revoked and costs awarded to the r…
21 Apr 2023

BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD (in liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 594
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV59/2020

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims were barred by the reflective loss principle because the loss he sought to recover derived from diminution in the value of First Credit shares suffered by Best Year and EPL; that loss crystallised before he sold his interests, so a subsequent sale did not convert it into a distinct personal loss; the court was bound by Hong Kong authority (Waddington) and the nature‑of‑loss analysis required dismissal; consequently the strike‑out of his pleadings and dismissal of his claims was upheld.
30 Apr 2015

KAYWAY INVESTMENT LTD v. FOCUS WINNER LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAYWAY INVESTMENT LTD v. FOCUS WINNER LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA967/2013

On proper construction of the DMC the term "Exterior Wall" denotes the entirety of the external wall enclosing the building; the 2nd Defendant is liable for trespass and summary judgment on liability is entered against it; the 1st Defendant's bare denial and absence of tenancy terms permits an inference of joint tortfeasorship on the facts and therefore conditional leave to defend subject to interim payments is granted.
16 Sept 2014

LPC v. CYC, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHS, THE DECEASED

Citation

LPC v. CYC, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHS, THE DECEASED
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP61/2012

Applicant failed to prove she was maintained wholly or substantially by the deceased immediately before death: deceased had withdrawn assumption of responsibility in relation to Maintenance Cheques by about November 2007; Unit 409 and remuneration were provided by AEL (a separate legal entity) and corporate veil was not lifted; balancing of contributions showed mutual dependency rather than applicant's dependency; applicant's assets could meet her needs so no award ordered.
28 Jan 2014

LIU MAN HO SIMON AND OTHERS v. OPUS LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LIU MAN HO SIMON AND OTHERS v. OPUS LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1674/2011

The court found that D2 (Madam Chow) breached fiduciary duties by diverting the company's sole customer to Everfine; Everfine, as D2's corporate vehicle, is equally liable; there was no valid unanimous or retrospective resolution binding the company to cease before accounts were settled; an account of profits was ordered confined to the first 12 months up to end July 2009 (the watershed being the formal written agreement secured in July 2009); director fees could not be allowed as a deduction, yielding disgorgement of HK$67,142 plus interest from 1 August 2009; injunctions were declined and t…
6 Sept 2013

TSE KWONG CHUNG v. HO HUNG KIT

Citation

TSE KWONG CHUNG v. HO HUNG KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2233/2006

On the balance of probabilities the court found that Tse was not an employee of Wing Yip but had entered into a joint venture with Ho using Wing Yip as the corporate vehicle; Tse and Ho were equal partners sharing 50% of net profits; the four lump sum payments of $1.7M were distributions of Tse's profit share not loans; Ho must account for all income, expenses and profits of the joint venture (including post-17 July 2006 Western Corridor orders and the Clinic Project) and pay sums found due to Tse after credit for those distributions.
31 May 2013

HKSAR v. GLOBAL MERCHANT FUNDING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. GLOBAL MERCHANT FUNDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP929/2013

The application for a stay was allowed because the applicant demonstrated an arguable appeal and there was a real and substantial risk that the respondent, a separate limited company with minimal paid up capital, would be unable to repay the HK$2.25 million awarded in costs, rendering the appeal nugatory absent a stay.
3 Nov 2010

RE MR ROBERT HILDYARD, QC

Citation

RE MR ROBERT HILDYARD, QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1890/2010

The application to admit Mr Robert Hildyard QC was dismissed because the appeal did not raise a live jurisdictional question on quasi‑interest, the issues were not of sufficient novelty or complexity to require overseas counsel, the application was made late causing potential prejudice and insufficient efforts were made to instruct local counsel; these factors cumulatively did not justify admission.
17 Dec 2009

CHINNEY CONSTRUCTION CO, LTD v. ONWAY ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CHINNEY CONSTRUCTION CO, LTD v. ONWAY ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW495/2007

The discovery summons was dismissed as unnecessary and ill-founded because the court only needed to be satisfied the cross-claim was bona fide and the companys asserted claim against Shun Wing had been struck out and could not operate as set-off; accordingly the petitioning creditors debt remained due and the company was ordered to be wound up with costs payable out of its assets.
20 Nov 2007

HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GION LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GION LIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA657/2007

Plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong and the assets he claims in Hong Kong (savings account, life policy, companies with nominee shareholdings, and encumbered land held by a company) are not fixed and permanent assets readily available for meaningful execution; the Plaintiff’s pleaded facts and admissions undermined any strong case of gross negligence by the bank; accordingly it was fair and equitable to order security for costs, adjusted to HK$400,000 with 21 days to pay, and a costs order nisi granted to the 2nd Defendant.