Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality/public policy

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2024

TODAY IS FINANCE LTD v. TSANG KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1050
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4915/2020

On the balance of probabilities D2 proved he paid the purchase consideration of HK$3.2m and construction costs of over HK$1.4m and evidenced control of the original New Grant and a General Power of Attorney; D1's conduct (including not contesting the HC claim and handing over the New Grant) and the documentary evidence established either a resulting trust and/or common intention constructive trust in favour of D2 such that D1 had no beneficial interest to be charged; therefore the Charging Order was discharged.
23 Aug 2023

CHENG YEE KIT SHIRLEY v. NG SHEK HING by his Guardian ad litem NG WING LEUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2092
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2669/2017

There was no contractual obligation requiring the Plaintiff to complete works by June 2016; the Defendant breached express and implied terms by taking possession and control of construction without the Plaintiff's consent and by preventing her agents' access; implied terms permitting access and forbidding repossession were necessary and obvious; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Defendant holds the Disputed Property on trust for her, specific performance (delivery of possession) subject to Conditions of Grant, mesne profits and costs.
18 Jan 2023

OUTSTANDING MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION LTD v. GOLD TOPMONT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 155
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA321/2022

The 1st Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving the Plaintiff was a moneylender or that the Facility Agreement was caught by ss7,22 or 23 MLO; contemporaneous documentation overwhelmingly supports the Plaintiff's account ofLoans, repayments allocation and guarantees and contradicts the 1st Defendant's wine‑purchase and extension narratives; allegations of illegality were speculative and unsupported; there was no credible evidence of a binding verbal extension to defer enforcement. Consequently there was no real prospect of success on the defences and summary judgment was appropria…
2 Jun 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 786
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2021

The Court held the Tribunals erred in principle by reducing the Base Amount to reflect that a respondent formed only part of an undertaking; pecuniary penalties must be specific to the undertaking and determined by reference to the undertaking's economic activity, not the internal allocation among entities; reliance on subcontracting in breach of public interest protections (HKHA DC System) is impermissible mitigation; inability to recoup must be proved with evidence; accordingly the Commission's appeals on the reductions succeed and substituted higher penalties were ordered; the Tribunal's r…
22 Jul 2016

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV7/2016

The Court held the Developers retained the beneficial interest in the Land Lots by operation of resulting trust; the plaintiffs were mere nominees holding legal title on trust for the Developers; therefore plaintiffs had no beneficial interest and their conspiracy and wasted costs claims failed; appeal dismissed and plaintiffs ordered to pay costs.
24 Dec 2015

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2014

Paragraph 24 was reinstated because it was not plain and obvious that MOFCOM approval satisfied the SPAs' condition precedent given MOFCOM approval was obtained on the basis of a different agreement, factual disputes about knowledge and conduct engage the prevention principle and revocation of approval remained possible; these are mixed questions for trial. Paragraph 25 was correctly struck out because the Defence lacked particulars to show how the transfer or SPAs were illegal or contrary to public policy and the voluntary particulars failed to establish that basis.
23 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. LAU KAM YING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KAM YING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC18/2013

Leave to appeal refused: the prosecution did not need to prove an indefeasible beneficial title in Howin; the offence focused on dishonest concealment of Howin's beneficial interest by tendering false statutory declarations to obtain compensation; Howin had sufficient beneficial interest for the charge and the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming, so no point of law of great and general importance or grave/substantial injustice established.
23 Apr 2012

LAI YU SAN AND OTHERS v. WONG KWAN KIT

Citation

LAI YU SAN AND OTHERS v. WONG KWAN KIT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3360/2010

Clause 8 did not bind the defendant to perform the Hongkong Electric agreement because the obligations under that agreement were not disclosed to or agreed by the defendant; only obligation under clause 8 was to retain the two electricity metres. The rental deposit cheque issued at handover was not supported by consideration because the purchaser had already paid the purchase price and the deposit was part of company assets; plaintiffs' claims fail. Defendant entitled to reimbursement of apportioned rental and electricity charges and ordered assistance in transferring the restaurant licence;…
26 Jul 2010

SIT KAM TAI v. GAMMON IRON GATE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SIT KAM TAI v. GAMMON IRON GATE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA779/2006

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because (1) the accounts were concluded and settled by the members at the meeting on 15 August 2000 with payments made thereafter and no credible evidence existed of any valid agreement to recalculate dividends, and (2) the claim is barred by illegality/public policy as arising from cartel conduct that cheated the tendering process.
25 Jan 2008

LAM SO LEI v. CHAN CHIT

Citation

LAM SO LEI v. CHAN CHIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2397/2007

Agreements under the pleaded facts provided for payments to the defendant to secure the release of a detainee and thus were contracts aimed at improperly interfering with the course of public justice; they were contrary to public policy and unlawful, placing the parties in pari delicto such that the plaintiff could not recover on breach or for money had and received; the cheque claim failed because it was given pursuant to a rescinded/voidable agreement and lacked consideration; accordingly the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.