Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distribution of sale proceeds

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

KWUN SAU KAM v. LI YAN LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 708
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2866/2025

Because the Property is small and partition is impracticable, and a Charging Order Absolute subsists against D1's interest, the court exercised its statutory power under sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Partition Ordinance to order sale. The court directed sale by private treaty within 90 days or, failing that, public auction, with net proceeds first applied to outgoings and sale costs, then encumbrances, and the remaining net proceeds to be split equally; D1's half was to be applied first to discharge the Charging Order Absolute (HK$819,043.85) and Allocatur (HK$31,230) with any balance to D1, and…
21 Oct 2024

CHU FU KEUNG v. WONG MEI YAN MIRANDA

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1838/2019

The 2022 consent order was conditional on the Defendant completing the buy-out; the Defendant failed to comply with that condition; therefore the court retained jurisdiction to set aside the consent order, set it aside and order the Property sold under the Partition Ordinance with incidental directions, order an account of rents and award costs to the Plaintiff.
10 Oct 2022

林對袁

Citation

[2022] HKFC 213
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11085/2014

Because the property was sold before the 1 June 2020 deadline para D did not impose a duty to provide D(ii) information and there was no breach; para F requires the sale price to be calculated by applying the specified residential per‑sq‑ft rate (taken as HK$12,039.44 for March 2020) multiplied by the residential area plus a minimum HK$900,000 for the parking, producing a market minimum of HK$11,121,484.56, and the applicant's sale at HK$9,830,000 created a shortfall of HK$1,291,484.56 payable into the son's account; the prior mortgage arrears HK$211,146 fall within the broad class of mortgag…
20 Apr 2022

RE CHINA HUAXIN PETROLEUM LTD (In Liquidation)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1060
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW240/2019

The court held that, applying s15 LARCO and equitable subrogation principles, SHX's indemnity and the need to equalise contribution between co-sureties justify subrogation to the bank's mortgage rights so that SHX receives 0% and CAL and CHPL receive 46% and 54% respectively from the Trust Account; the proposed distribution is a proper exercise of the court's discretion under s199(2) Cap 32 and is sanctioned.
5 Feb 2021

HAK (also known as HABK) v. BID

Citation

[2021] HKFC 29
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8732/2007

The court applied the asset valuations and allocations set out in HH Judge Bruno Chan's AR Judgment, added back the respondent's legal costs to the family pot, and adjusted division of the actual net sale proceeds of HK$2,799,728.90 so that after payment each party would have received approximately equal total shares; accordingly HK$2,433,692.95 was ordered paid to the Petitioner and HK$366,035.95 to the Respondent.
16 Apr 2020

CREDIT SUISSE AG v. THE OWNER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BRIGHTOIL LUCKY”

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ14/2019

The court exercised its supervisory judgment to fix sensible retention sums per action and to limit the security to cover (a) the plaintiff's costs of the action on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed, and (b) further legal costs and disbursements incurred to protect, exercise or enforce the plaintiff's rights under the mortgage; retention sums ordered: HCAJ13 US$380,000, HCAJ14 US$370,000, HCAJ15 US$350,000, HCAJ16 US$370,000. The Chief Bailiff's commission (HK$5,866,947.15) must be paid first; the plaintiff paid as second priority as first priority mortgagee; intervener's priority…
21 Jun 2017

盧對黃

Citation

盧對黃
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2372/2016

The application for leave failed because the Court found the Court of Appeal order's language was plain: only expenses 'reasonably incurred by reason of the sale' (paras 8 and 9(iii)) qualified for deduction and the respondent's claimed items were ordinary owner expenses not incurred specifically because of the sale; paragraph 9(vi) was unambiguous and the term 'remainder' referred consistently to the post-deduction balance, so the respondent's alternative interpretation lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently leave and a stay were refused.
16 Dec 2013

WINBLESS INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS

Citation

WINBLESS INC v. CENTRAL BILLION INC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW371/2011

The companies are manifestly solvent with substantial reserves; the proposed distributions are within the directors' powers and the reasons given are such that an intelligent and honest person could hold them to be in the companies' interests; no compelling evidence was shown that the distributions would injure the companies or prejudice creditors; accordingly the court ordered distribution of sale proceeds according to each company's shareholding and directed costs be paid from company assets.
16 Dec 2013

FANCYMIND INC v. FAKO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation

FANCYMIND INC v. FAKO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW373/2011

The court ordered distribution of the sale proceeds in accordance with the shareholding structures because the companies are solvent, the directors' proposed disposition was within their powers and an intelligent and honest person could view it as necessary or expedient in the companies' interests, and no compelling evidence was shown that the distribution would injure the companies.
8 Oct 2013

LIU KAM TAI v. LAU LAI PING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU KAM TAI v. LAU LAI PING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP267/2013

Defendants failed to demonstrate any triable issue or produce evidence that they had contributed to the purchase price or otherwise acquired enforceable beneficial interests contrary to the Undertaking Letter; the Undertaking Letter superseded earlier arrangements and no writing supported defendants' asserted dispositions, therefore court ordered additional release of funds so plaintiff would receive 90% of net sale proceeds.