Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud exception to summary judgment

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2022

WONG LEE MEI MAY v. SINCERITY INTERNATIONAL GROUP (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 272
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5090/2019

Appeal dismissed because the fraud exception did not apply (plaintiff abandoned constructive trust claim) and the defendant adduced documentary and transactional evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue, principally the good consideration / discharge for value defence, such that summary judgment was properly refused and the matter must proceed to trial.
1 Jun 2020

FREEMAN SECURITIES LTD v. IP PO KI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2368/2018

The defendant failed to raise any bona fide arguable defence or triable issue: the alleged oral agreement and implied terms were inherently improbable and contradicted the written margin agreement and commercial common sense; the HK$70,000,000 alleged loan was implausible in the manner it was deposited; and the fraud exception did not apply because allegations of fraud were only directed at non-parties. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff for the principal, contractual pre-judgment interest and costs.
2 Apr 2020

STRAIGHT WAY GROUP LTD v. DAYTON INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1754/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff's amended statement of claim and affidavit material advanced allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and willful concealment such that the fraud exception to Order 14 is engaged and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the summary judgment application; alternatively, even absent the fraud exception, there are substantial triable issues and disputed contemporaneous documents making summary judgment inappropriate. The application to admit Davies 3 failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and the Amendment Summons is dismissed.
15 Nov 2019

XIAO LONG v. GREAT WALL SECURITIES LTD (formerly known as COLORS SECURITIES LTD)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA369/2018

Appeal allowed. Master Order granting final summary judgment with assessed damages was set aside because plaintiff had not conclusively pleaded or established legal title to the specifically‑identified block of shares and numbered certificates and there were real triable issues (ownership crystallisation, identity/signature, possible subsequent dealings) warranting a full trial; the fraud exception was not found to bar summary judgment automatically on the existing evidence but the defendant showed bona fide reasons for trial and unconditional leave to defend was granted; fresh evidence from…
6 Nov 2019

CHRISTINE RUTH ONG CHAI HOON AND OTHERS v. LAM KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1793/2012

The summons for further security for costs was dismissed because the defendants failed to prove enforcement difficulties in Singapore; the evidence relied on (an unrelated prior enforcement timeline) was insufficient to show typical or exceptional enforcement obstacles, and the burden to justify security was not discharged.
22 Aug 2018

ZHONGTAI INTERNATIONAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD v. ROYAL MOON INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2755/2015

The fraud exception applies because Zhongtai’s claim, in substance, alleges intentional or reckless dishonest conduct by China Kingstone such that summary judgment under O.14 is barred; further China Kingstone has demonstrated an arguable defence and key factual disputes (existence of oral trust, reasons for signatory removal, commercial context) require trial; accordingly the summary judgment and interim payment applications are dismissed.
10 Jul 2018

FERRARI NORTH AMERICA, INC v. CHANGHON INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA852/2017

Summary judgment was granted because the plaintiff proved the funds were transferred into the 3rd defendant’s account and were traceable; the 3rd defendant proffered only non-admissions and denials and filed no affidavit or evidence to raise a triable issue or to establish a bona fide purchaser defence; the fraud exception did not apply because the fraud alleged was by unknown third parties and the plaintiff confined its claim to unjust enrichment and tracing rather than alleging the 3rd defendant committed fraud.
21 Jun 2017

LAERDAL MEDICAL LTD v. HONG KONG HAOCHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADE LTD

Citation

LAERDAL MEDICAL LTD v. HONG KONG HAOCHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2193/2016

The fraud exception is not engaged because the action does not include a claim that requires pleading fraud to establish it; the defendant’s admission of no relationship to justify the payment establishes that the sum was received without proper authority, permitting the court to proceed to determine summary judgment on the papers.
12 Jun 2017

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UMITOYS v. NICE FAME TRADING LTD

Citation

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UMITOYS v. NICE FAME TRADING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2522/2014

Summary judgment was refused because the fraud exception to Order 14 applied and the defendant raised believable triable issues supported by contemporaneous documents; the interlocutory injunction was discharged because the defendant showed an arguable bona fide change of position and there was no solid evidence of real risk of asset dissipation; the plaintiff, being ordinarily resident outside jurisdiction and unable to show high probability of success, was ordered to provide security for costs in the sum assessed; leave to amend the defence was granted.
26 Apr 2016

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA623/2015

The fraud exception is engaged because the plaintiffs' pleaded case and supporting materials, taken in substance, impute intentional or reckless dishonesty by the 1st defendant in transferring the plaintiffs' beneficial interests in CSI into BVI discretionary trusts without knowledge or consent; accordingly the court has no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment under Order 14 and the Order 14 summons must be dismissed; the existence of the alleged Hong Kong trust raises triable issues requiring a full trial.