Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary trusts

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2023

ELYSIUM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUM KA KUEN DOMINIC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA502/2022

The intended intervener failed to demonstrate a direct, non‑contingent interest in the subject matter of the plaintiffs' pleaded causes; even taking the alleged 'Consensus' at its highest it did not bind the defendants or alter the fiduciary relationships pleaded; joinder would therefore be outside the court's jurisdictional threshold under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) and, alternatively, the court would refuse joinder because it would introduce an additional and unnecessary layer of dispute. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the joinder order was correctly refused.
11 Mar 2020

JOESH OVERSEAS LTD v. LEE SAI NAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW302/2011

Leave to re-amend was refused because the proposed new case was materially different, lacked particulars and supporting documents, and no satisfactory explanation was given for multiple inconsistent formulations or for prior misleading statements of truth; however the amended petition was not struck out because it was not plain and obvious that it would fail and the petitioner retained locus to present an arguable claim regarding rights of use of the property.
17 Jun 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

The court concluded the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success on any of the six grounds; the appointment of interim receivers was a justified and proportionate exercise of discretion given the evidence of risk to trust assets and the limited scope for appellate interference with discretionary orders; accordingly leave to appeal and applications for stay were dismissed and costs ordered against the 1st defendant.
17 Jun 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2191/2014

The judge held that the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success on any ground of appeal; the appointment of receivers was a lawful exercise of discretion justified by the evidence of risk to the trust assets (including unexplained substantial cash depletion), the lack of undertakings at the hearing, and the limited scope for appellate interference with interlocutory discretionary orders, so leave to appeal and stays were dismissed and limited directions were given to the receivers.
17 Jun 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

The judge applied the correct standard for leave to appeal and the well-established principles governing appellate review of interlocutory discretionary orders, found that the 1st defendant's grounds did not have reasonable prospects of success on the facts and law before the court, held that the appointment of receivers was justified by demonstrated risks (including unexplained significant cash decreases) and was the appropriate and proportionate remedy, and directed that receivers should not alter the board of Shanshui Cement without court directions; accordingly leave and stay applications…
17 Jun 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA623/2015

The judge found no ground of appeal with reasonable prospects: the appointment of receivers was a justified and proportionate exercise of discretion to protect and preserve trust assets in view of the risks shown by the evidence, and none of the six proposed grounds demonstrated an error of law or a misapplication of principle sufficient to permit appellate interference; therefore leave to appeal and applications for stay were dismissed and costs ordered against the 1st defendant.
13 May 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

The court held that the ownership claim (proprietary claim to specified CSI shares) raises serious issues to be tried and properly falls within Order 11 r.1(1)(i) because the shares are movables situate in Hong Kong and issues of title are governed by the lex situs (Hong Kong law); accordingly Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum for the ownership claim and leave to serve out/substituted service is properly granted for that claim. However the separate corporate misconduct claim does not fall within the Order 11 gateways and the plaintiffs failed to draw this distinction in the ex parte…
30 May 2013

PLTO v. KLK AND ANOTHER

Citation

PLTO v. KLK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2012

The court refused both applications for leave to appeal because the questions raised involved established principles and were essentially applications of those principles to the facts of the case; the matters were contextual and fact-specific and therefore did not raise questions of great general or public importance warranting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
8 Feb 2005

F v. F

Citation

F v. F
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11295/2001

The husband must disclose the trust deeds, the classes and names of beneficiaries and the trusts' accounts for the last three years because those documents are relevant to ancillary relief, are within his power to obtain from trustees (trustees owe beneficiaries a duty to provide such information), there has been a material change since trustees' identities became known, and the earlier consent order did not decide the merits nor preclude a fresh discovery order; application not an abuse of process.