Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declarations and injunctions

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2024

RICH REGION HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1811/2023

The loan agreement and the share charge were sham instruments, no monies were advanced by Great Bliss to Gold Brilliant, consequently the charge never conveyed any legal or equitable interest to Great Bliss and the subsequent assignment to Seashore could not transfer any interest; therefore declarations were made to that effect and Seashore’s counterclaim dismissed; specified loan amounts owed by Gold Brilliant to Rich Region and Concept Pioneer were accepted as due.
23 Jul 2018

LAM SAI WAN v. MINLOY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA31/2014

Plaintiff established factual possession and animus possidendi over the disputed lots for the requisite limitation period so that the paper title held by predecessors (and thus by Caborca in 1979 and extinguished before Minloy’s 1991 purchase) was extinguished; the 1993 acknowledgement concerned only 17 lots and could not revive title already extinguished, therefore plaintiff is entitled to possessory title and registration; defendant’s counterclaims fail.
26 Jun 2013

SHUN LUNG INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LEE ON BUILDING

Citation

SHUN LUNG INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LEE ON BUILDING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4806/2011

Defendant failed to prove any estoppel or consent because it operated under a genuine mistaken belief that the partition wall was common property and plaintiff lacked actual or constructive knowledge to impose a duty to speak; contributions under a valid owners' resolution do not constitute representations giving rise to estoppel; unjust enrichment not established; therefore installation of items breached the DMC and constituted actionable interference and plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and costs.
6 Jul 2011

TANG KAP WING TSO v. TANG LEUK TSO AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG KAP WING TSO v. TANG LEUK TSO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/2010

The Court dismissed the appeal: the 2003 Deed and related agreements bound KWT because Madam Liu had acquiesced or authorized Tang Jr to act as manager and the head of the sole fong (Tang Jr) could be taken to represent unanimous member consent; LT managers did not fail in due diligence in relying on the documents and distributions made; moreover, deliberate non-joinder of Tang Sr's estate justified refusal of equitable relief, so declarations and injunctions were denied.
7 Jul 2004

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. RIVER TRADE TERMINAL CO LTD

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. RIVER TRADE TERMINAL CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/2003

Special Condition 16 is construed to permit only vessels that are regularly employed in trading or going within the Pearl River region (i.e. vessels that routinely trade or move within the confines of the region) and vessels trading solely within Hong Kong waters under Part IV Cap.313; "going within" means movement inside the region rather than merely entering it, so ocean-going vessels that only call at Hong Kong but do not trade or move within the Pearl River region are excluded; thus the lower court's opposite construction was wrong and the appeal is allowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RICH REGION HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

LAM SAI WAN v. MINLOY LTD

SHUN LUNG INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LEE ON BUILDING

TANG KAP WING TSO v. TANG LEUK TSO AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. RIVER TRADE TERMINAL CO LTD