27 Oct 2025
Because there are material factual disputes as to whether the signatures on the Board Resolution were forged or improperly attached, the matter is unsuitable for determination on affidavits by originating summons; accordingly the court exercised O.28 r.8(1) to order pleadings and refused to grant final relief on the originating summons.
31 Aug 2020
On the totality of contemporaneous documentary evidence, expert handwriting opinion, and consistent later corporate filings, the Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the relevant signatures (including the Father's and siblings') were genuine or not shown to be forged and that unanimous assent was evidenced such that the Duomatic principle validated the 1997 restructuring; consequentially all appeals were dismissed and the application for extension of time was refused for inexcusable delay and failure to comply with directions.
15 May 2019
[2019] HKCFI 1226
16 Nov 2018
The cheque funds were paid by the plaintiff and deposited into the defendant's account (enrichment at claimant's expense); the subscription documents were forged and legally void so the plaintiff received no consideration (total failure of consideration); the defendant's claim that the funds were outstanding rent was unsupported by admissible evidence and implausible; therefore the enrichment was unjust and the defendant must restore HK$350,000 plus interest and costs.
6 Jan 2016
On the totality of evidence including contemporaneous corporate filings, declarations of trust stamped and filed, father's documented notes, financial statements and the inherent improbability of a widespread pre-death forgery scheme, the court was satisfied to the requisite civil standard that the disputed signatures of Eleanor, Angela and Andrew were genuine and that the 1997 Restructuring and the Declarations of Trust were effective; accordingly the Philip Group prevailing corporate rights stand and forgery claims are dismissed.
6 Jan 2016
On the totality of the contemporaneous documentary evidence, the inherent probabilities and the credibility assessments, the court was satisfied that the disputed signatures were genuine and that the 1997 restructuring and the declarations of trust took legal effect; shareholders who signed circulated minutes and transfer instruments were bound and the challengers failed to prove forgery.
26 May 2011
The trial judge's findings that the Authorisation was fabricated and that the plaintiff's signatures on the transfer documents were forged were sustained on appeal; those findings entitled the plaintiff to relief irrespective of conspiracy, and the declarations and order to rectify the register (that the board had not approved transfer of the 40,000 shares) were correctly made; the appeal is dismissed.
16 Sept 2009
On the balance of probabilities the Authorization was fabricated using a blank letterhead previously signed by the plaintiff, the disputed signatures on ten documents were forged, the transfers and appointments dependent on those forged signatures are invalid, and therefore the plaintiff retains his 60,000 shares and offices; registers must be rectified and books returned because findings of forgery and conspiracy were established by documentary analysis and witness credibility assessment.
28 Jun 2004
The Court of Appeal (majority) upheld the trial judges findings that the questioned signatures in the 1990 documents were forged based on the handwriting expert evidence considered in the round and on the circumstantial/suspicious circumstances; the propounder (Wife) failed to satisfy the judicial conscience that the 1990 documents were duly executed and the decree of probate for the 1968 will in solemn form granted in favour of the Father was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
6 Feb 1996
The guarantee was not proved to have been validly executed or authorised; the disputed signatures were shown to be forgeries and statutory declarations corroborated that; the Plaintiff continued the action despite knowing success was unlikely and motivated by an extraneous tax benefit, therefore the claim was dismissed by consent and costs were ordered on an indemnity basis.