Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent breach of trust

Legal area

Court

2 Jul 2025

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2775
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA494/2015

On the balance of probabilities the judge found Lim Por Yen orchestrated and approved the Transaction and Koo and Pearl signed documents under his instructions; there was insufficient evidence that Koo and Pearl knew the Transaction was at undervalue or acted dishonestly; accordingly there was no established breach of fiduciary duty or fraudulent breach of trust by Koo and Pearl and the Duomatic principle was available; the liquidator's claims were dismissed.
18 Jul 2023

E & P GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO) v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

Plaintiff failed to prove on the required standard that the defendants committed fraudulent or reckless breaches in relation to the Grandtop, MAIL and KKL investments; the first defendant’s explanations were credible, documentary errors were innocent mistakes, due diligence and auditor involvement undercut recklessness allegations, and there was insufficient evidence, so the claim against all defendants is dismissed.
17 Mar 2017

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

The court held the original Statement of Claim already pleaded a distinct case of fraud/fraudulent breach of trust with sufficient particulars; the proposed amendments (including a fraudulent concealment cause) were permissible as they allege aspects of breach of fiduciary duty amounting to fraud which fall within s20(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance or otherwise can be addressed by defendants in their defence; the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was denied.
10 Feb 2017

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

Statement of claim in original form sufficiently and distinctly pleaded fraud/fraudulent breach of trust by the directors; proposed amendments that provide further particulars of the dishonest acquisition and misleading documents are permissible; allegations of fraudulent/dishonest concealment, although a new head of deceit, arise out of the same transaction and substantially the same facts and are allowable under O 20 r 5(5); absence of explicit fraud in the writ indorsement did not bar amendments when SC pleaded fraud; leave to amend granted with defendants to file amended defences within 2…
23 Oct 2015

KAN SIU FU v. KAN SIU KEUNG JIMMY AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAN SIU FU v. KAN SIU KEUNG JIMMY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA115/2011

The challenged portions of the supplemental witness statement were not struck out because the allegations, though serious, relate to pleaded issues of fraud/dishonesty and credibility; the court concluded it is inappropriate at interlocutory stage to resolve factual disputes or conduct a mini-trial and such matters should be examined at trial by cross-examination; accordingly leave to serve the supplemental witness statement was granted and procedural orders (including costs) were made.
22 Mar 2012

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. EVERWIN DYNASTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. EVERWIN DYNASTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1469/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonably arguable limitation defence open to the defendant: the proposed claims alleged fraudulent misappropriation in breach of trust and the defendant stood in the position of a trustee or constructive trustee, so s20(1)(a) removes limitation; the double recovery point could not be resolved on the material before the court and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; consequently the appeal had no reasonable prospect and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave.
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. TRIPLE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. TRIPLE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA394/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statements of claim lacked particulars of dishonest or fraudulent conduct, the liquidator's affidavits contained specific matters from which those allegations could be inferred and which ought to be pleaded; the proper remedy was to order the plaintiff to amend the statements of claim to include those particulars rather than to set aside the joinder orders or strike out the claims, and the fraud limitation exception applied where pleaded.
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statement of claim inadequately pleaded particulars of dishonest or fraudulent breaches, the liquidators had placed sufficient evidential material in their affidavit (Mr Blaauw) from which particulars could be pleaded; accordingly joinder was upheld but the plaintiff was ordered to amend the statements of claim to incorporate the particulars deposed in the affidavit. The court would not strike out the claims or set aside the joinder where particulars exist and can be pleaded; limitation did not bar the pleaded fraudulent claims where s.20(1)(a)…
7 Dec 2010

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO STARLITE INSURANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. ATMARAM PARSHOTAMDAS BALANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA395/2010

The appeals were dismissed because, although the statements of claim lacked necessary particulars of alleged dishonest or fraudulent breaches and relied on affidavit material, the affidavit disclosed matters capable of being pleaded as particulars; the proper course was to require the plaintiff to amend the statements of claim to plead the particulars from the liquidator's affidavit within a fixed time rather than set aside the Master’s joinder orders.
12 Jun 2008

PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LAU KWOK FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LAU KWOK FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV248/2006

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal limited to the single question whether a defence of limitation is available to a dishonest assister to a fraudulent breach of trust or fiduciary duty, and held that leave will not be given on paper alone but requires assistance of counsel to frame the question properly.