Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate veil/alter ego

Legal area

Court

28 Dec 2016

KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER

Citation

KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA678/2014

Leave to defend was properly granted but should be conditional on a substantial payment into court (70% of the claimed sum) because Grand Bulk's explanation for default was unsatisfactory and its bona fides questionable, while the defence raised factual issues of credibility sufficient to justify a trial rather than shutting Grand Bulk out.
10 Sept 2009

GEE YAU WING TERRY v. NG KWOK WAH VINCENT

Citation

GEE YAU WING TERRY v. NG KWOK WAH VINCENT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6362/2006

On credibility findings the court accepted the plaintiff and witnesses and rejected the defendant; the evidence established the HK$300,000 was lent to the defendant personally and Pearldek Ltd. was used by the defendant for personal benefit; the cause of action accrued on 30 December 2000 and the action commenced within six years; therefore the defendant is personally liable for the principal and accrued interest.
22 Nov 2007

HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA836/2007

The undertaking to pay 60% of 'net income' must be calculated after allowing only expenses referable to the Defendants as artistes and their performance work (recording, concerts, promotional appearances); strictly corporate overheads (rent, rates, electricity, staff salaries, messing) are not allowable, though rehearsal costs, specified fees and agent's salary are allowable; fresh accounts must be prepared on this basis and 60% of that net figure paid into court.
17 Jan 1986

RE BHAGOHAND KISHINCHAND KHEMLANI

Citation

RE BHAGOHAND KISHINCHAND KHEMLANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB269/1985

The judge found the debtor had not provided a full and satisfactory explanation of his financial affairs, identified concerning unexplained items in company accounts and auditor qualifications, and concluded that the opposition was unmeritorious; in the exercise of judicial discretion a receiving order should be made and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Hong Kong Case Law

KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER

GEE YAU WING TERRY v. NG KWOK WAH VINCENT

HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER

RE BHAGOHAND KISHINCHAND KHEMLANI