Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Default judgment (order 19 r7)

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2025

AMIDAS HONG KONG LTD v. CHE SI LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2754/2024

Judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$5,186,160 with interest; declaration that that sum and HK$18,610.78 interest up to 31 July 2024 in the defendant's bank account are held on constructive trust for the plaintiff; court permitted a rolled-up account and tracing inquiry on clear pleaded tracing and apportioned accrued and future interest (99.99% to plaintiff); court rejected a vesting order under s.52(1)(e) Trustee Ordinance in respect of a remedial/category 2 constructive trustee and dismissed the HCMP vesting proceedings and any stand-alone vesting order against the bank; court refused an…
11 May 2022

NATURES MARK HK LTD v. HONGKONG HONGXINTAI TRADING CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1820/2021

The statement of claim, properly pleaded, established entitlement to judgment under Order 19 r7: the sums received by D1 and passed to D2 were traceable proceeds of fraud subject to a constructive trust; D2 was liable for dishonest assistance/knowing receipt; declaratory relief was justified to protect proprietary interests; the Mareva injunction was to be continued for a limited period to assist enforcement; interest awarded at prime+1% from the respective dates of receipt.
18 Jan 2021

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 141
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2067/2019

Retrospective leave to file a defence was refused because the defendant offered no good explanation for a five‑month delay and the draft defence was unarguable on its face; default judgment under Order 19 r7 was entered for the pleaded causes (breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, breach of duty of fidelity and unjust enrichment) for HK$9,037,474.68; compound interest at prime + 1% compounded yearly was awarded (pre- and post-judgment) with pre-judgment interest quantified to 9 October 2020; and the Mareva injunction was varied and continued for six months to freeze the judgment sum and accrued i…
11 Sept 2019

TAI CHING LING v. CAI GUO CHUAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1782/2018

Because the defendant received funds in circumstances showing no legitimate basis and had knowledge of the proceedings and did not repay, it was unconscionable to retain the sum; equity therefore imposed a constructive trust in favour of the plaintiff and a vesting order under s52 Cap 29 was appropriate to vest the right to the funds and permit transfer; Bank of China (HK) was to be joined and ordered to comply with the vesting order subject to practical limitations (no time limit for cross‑border transfer and no order for profits).
29 Jun 2018

i3 INTERNATIONAL INC. v. IMPERIAL GLOBAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA660/2018

Given that the pleaded facts are deemed admitted on default, and because of the close proximity in time and similarity of means of the three wire transfers, the court was satisfied there was a sufficient basis to infer concerted wrongdoing permitting judgment in default, to grant declaratory proprietary relief over the relevant funds, and to continue the Mareva injunction to secure enforcement of the proprietary remedy.

Hong Kong Case Law

AMIDAS HONG KONG LTD v. CHE SI LTD AND ANOTHER

NATURES MARK HK LTD v. HONGKONG HONGXINTAI TRADING CO LTD

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

TAI CHING LING v. CAI GUO CHUAN

i3 INTERNATIONAL INC. v. IMPERIAL GLOBAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER