Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directors' personal liability

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2025

PACIFIC BULK SUPRAMAX CO LTD v. WONG MAN KAM PATRICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1632/2021

Court found beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the Wider C&D Arrangement existed and the C&D Sale Proceeds undertaking given to the court was false insofar as BMC had not sold the three shipments and defendants knew this; (b) defendants willfully failed to take reasonable steps to procure BMC to comply with the monthly update obligation under that undertaking; and (c) defendants failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance with the Asset Disclosure Orders in respect of certain transfers, such that committal is justified for Act of Contempt 1 (primary and alternative) and Act of Contempt…
21 Jun 2021

KCK ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM LTD v. CHAU KEE HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 740
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ97/2020

The court refused to discharge the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff established a good arguable case against the company and the individual defendants, there was no material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge, and there existed a real risk of asset dissipation based on registry changes, alleged overseas transfers and undisclosed interests; the variation request was refused except a limited amendment permitting HKD 100,000 for legal advice and representation up to and including exchange of witness statements; costs ordered nisi against the defendants.
20 Dec 2016

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1341/2014

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and made it absolute; ratification cured any initial lack of authority so Linklaters is not personally liable for pre-ratification costs; YDL's directors are not personally liable as they were not the true beneficiaries of the action; the mandatory injunction and action stand and Ricky Liu must bear costs of YDL's representation and his application to vary, with specified apportionments and directions for filing fresh costs statements.
29 Jan 2015

LIM YI SHENN v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

LIM YI SHENN v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1323/2010

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because the GVM was a forward‑looking business plan with disclaimers and, given the plaintiff's sophistication and the placing letter, he was not entitled to rely on it as actionable representations; no evidence supported the alleged contractual terms or that defendants agreed to hold HK$10,000,000 on a specific purpose trust; directors had not assumed personal contractual liability; plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and inherently improbable; accordingly dismissal with costs was ordered.
17 Mar 2014

INTERNATIONAL TRADEMART CO LTD v. PROCON HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRADEMART CO LTD v. PROCON HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1301/2013

The claim against the 2nd defendant failed as a matter of law because she was the sole director and sole shareholder of a one‑person company and the pleaded case did not establish that she acted outside her corporate capacity or mala fide so as to attract personal liability; the pleaded 'alter ego' assertions and proposed amendments could not cure this fundamental flaw and therefore the claim was plainly liable to be struck out and amendment refused.
5 Dec 2007

THE WALT DISNEY CO AND OTHERS v. D LAND TRAVEL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE WALT DISNEY CO AND OTHERS v. D LAND TRAVEL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3864/2001

The plaintiffs enjoyed substantial goodwill in the DISNEY marks in Hong Kong including travel services; D Land intentionally misrepresented itself as associated with the plaintiffs and thereby caused or risked damage; D Land is liable for passing off; Mr Mak, as controlling director and majority shareholder who selected names, managed the company and procured the wrongful acts, is personally liable as a joint tortfeasor; therefore permanent injunctions and ancillary relief including inquiry as to damages or account of profits and costs were ordered.
29 May 2003

NINTENDO CO LTD v. LIK SANG INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NINTENDO CO LTD v. LIK SANG INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3584/2002

Summary judgment was proper because on the evidence there was no real prospect of the defendants defeating liability: the Game Boy products were issued in a copy-protected form within s.273, the defendants' Flash products were specifically designed and predominantly used to circumvent that protection, the corporate defendants had no viable defence, the personal defendants were personally liable as active, knowing participants and profited from the infringement, and an interim payment of $5,000,000 was a reasonable conservative minimum of likely recoverable damages.
20 Oct 2000

DARYL MARK O\'SHAUGHNESSY v. DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON

Citation

DARYL MARK O\'SHAUGHNESSY v. DAVID WILLIAM GUNSON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9218/1999

The court refused final judgment under O.14 r.1 and granted unconditional leave to the 1st Defendant to defend because there is no direct evidence of criminal acts and material triable issues exist as to whether the 1st Defendant is personally liable; the unexplained non‑payment, while suspicious, does not justify drawing the inference of theft at interlocutory stage; accordingly the Defence should not be struck out and leave to amend is appropriate.
4 Feb 1994

KILIK KILIK SDN. BHD AND OTHERS v. LAU YU MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

KILIK KILIK SDN. BHD AND OTHERS v. LAU YU MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV168/1993

Appeal allowed; judge erred in ordering detailed particulars before the plaintiffs had the opportunity to obtain discovery of documents and facts peculiarly within the defendants' knowledge; accordingly the orders for particulars were discharged and discovery should be pursued first.
20 Oct 1993

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1670/1989

The court held that the conspiracy and most misrepresentation allegations were pleaded with sufficient particularity to survive strike out (defendants had adequate notice of the case to meet), but the alternative pleaded cause of action alleging 'other fraudulent purposes' (paragraph 28 and related part of 30) was speculative and lacked sufficient particulars and was struck out; discovery and production of the specified documents was refused as not necessary; numerous further and better particulars were ordered where denials or pleadings were ambiguous.