Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

De facto control

  • 12 Mar 2024

    LO PO WAI, HARRY v. WONG YEE CHUK

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 724
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1444/2022

    The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was in contempt for failing to produce specific documents that were within his power to obtain and that the failures evidenced culpable omission: namely the DY-2018 and DY-2019 reports, the 4/6/2018 bank statement, and specified invoices/contracts/purchase orders; however the plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had de facto control over the PRC Sales Company Yibao to compel production of additional documents, so no contempt was found on that basis. The court dispensed with personal service and adjourne…

  • 8 Dec 2014

    ANTENNA INVESTMENT LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ANTENNA INVESTMENT LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2840/2012

    On the balance of probabilities the judge found that Wong Ching was the real person in de facto control of ATV through arrangements with BK Wong and the Wong aligned directors, that those arrangements and conduct were designed to circumvent statutory residency/control requirements and misled the Communications Authority, and that this conduct was unfairly prejudicial to Antenna; accordingly extraordinary structural relief (appointment of managers and ordering sale of Panfair shares) was justified to remedy and prevent recurrence, and indemnity for the HK$1,000,000 regulatory fine was to be or…

  • 11 Jul 2006

    RE LEUNG YAT TUNG

    Citation
    RE LEUNG YAT TUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV119/2006

    The Court of Appeal set aside the discovery order because the Master improperly based production on a finding that the bankrupt was equivalent to Harbour Front Ltd without sufficient basis and clear wording/notice; the Master’s general discretion to award costs was upheld but the costs were reduced by excluding the third day's costs attributable to the set-aside discovery order and the adjournment sine die was remitted to the Master for reconsideration; the bankrupt must pay the Official Receiver’s costs of the public examination reduced to HKD181,331 and bear 75% of the costs of the appeal t…