Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent concealment

Legal area

Court

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.
29 Mar 2012

WINLAND ENTERPRISES GROUP INC. v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

Citation

WINLAND ENTERPRISES GROUP INC. v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2011

The Court dismissed the appeal: Winland could not rely on an unpleaded fraud/concealment case at the Order 12 r.8 review or on appeal to justify leave to serve out; the fresh PRC judgment evidence was irrelevant to the pleaded case; on the pleaded case there was no arguable basis to lift Acro Pharm's corporate veil and no serious issue to be tried against WEX.
7 Jan 2011

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1299/2005

The court found there was no good reason for the third, fourth and fifth extensions because the original justification (awaiting outcome of related jurisdictional proceedings) had ceased to exist and subsequent reasons relied on plaintiff convenience, cost-saving or unrelated proceedings were insufficient; accordingly the third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ are set aside. The court refused to set aside the first extension and leave to serve out for material non-disclosure, finding that the affirmations sufficiently implied the ancillary Taiwan proceedings and limitation issues were…
10 Mar 2009

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2008

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's Order 14 summary judgment because the writs included claims based on allegations of fraud (including deliberate dishonesty and concealment); consequently Order 1(2)(b) excluded the actions from summary judgment jurisdiction and the judge below lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment; the matters were remitted for case management in the commercial list.
9 Jun 2006

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL20/2005

The court found on the face of the Points of Claim that multiple causes of action were prima facie statute‑barred and that the fraud/dishonesty allegations were insufficiently particular (rolled‑up pleading); accordingly specified paragraphs must be struck out and the plaintiff ordered to replead the case against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, with costs to the applicants.
9 Dec 1994

BRUCE PORTER BARON v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. and Others

Citation

BRUCE PORTER BARON v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/1994

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the strike‑out because the judge erred in concluding the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, unable to show he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the misrepresentation within the limitation period; the plaintiff's reliance on the 2nd defendant was reasonably arguable and the misrepresentation claim was not bound to fail, and the non‑disclosure point relied on an inadmissible newspaper article and could not justify strike‑out.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

WINLAND ENTERPRISES GROUP INC. v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS

BRUCE PORTER BARON v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. and Others