Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lifting corporate veil

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

MADAM SUN LING v. GROUP JOY (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP765/2024

Defendants failed to show the high degree of assurance required to justify an interlocutory mandatory injunction; there is a serious question to be tried over beneficial ownership and an alleged oral agreement and eviction would cause acute and potentially irremediable injustice to the plaintiff and children. The balance of convenience therefore favours preserving the status quo and dismissing the application for a mandatory injunction.
12 Jan 2023

EARTH GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 64
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP380/2022

The Court of Appeal granted the defendants leave to appeal on the grounds that they had shown a reasonable prospect of success that the judge erred in imposing the Condition based on his assessment of the strength of the defences; it refused leave only on grounds relating to the irregularity of service or the judge's finding of evasion of service; and ordered the costs of the leave application to be in the cause of the appeal.
8 Jun 2022

GLOBE GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 620
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4256/2019

The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to pursue the oral guarantee and fraud/lifting the corporate veil claims except insofar as the pleadings attempted to treat the Loan Agreement or veil-lifting as creating a separate written guarantee or to assert enforceable security over the 2nd defendant’s property. The oral guarantee does not satisfy s.3 and s.5 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and is therefore unenforceable as creating security over land; accordingly the registration of the writ against the property is vacated. Certain paragraphs claiming a written guarantee…
27 Apr 2022

EARTH GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 241
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2155/2019

Judge found service was regular and defendants had in reality evaded service; consequently default judgments could only be set aside on just terms. To protect the plaintiff's interest and given the defendants' conduct and the risk of an empty judgment, the court set aside the Master’s order and ordered that the final judgments be set aside only on the condition that the defendants pay HK$1,139,462 into court within 28 days, and that upon such payment the Charging Order would be discharged and the defendants be permitted to file pleadings; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
26 Apr 2022

GLOBAL ALLIANCE LOGISTICS (HK) LTD v. PREMIERE LOGISTICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 289
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2104/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Old Company transferred its business to the New Company by virtue of near identical name/logo, shared premises, same director and sole shareholder, same company secretary, overlapping personnel and customers, identical documents and timing of incorporation shortly after the plaintiff's summary judgment application; the transfer occurred as a continuous process within s 9 limitation period, making the New Company liable under s 3 of the Ordinance; contemporaneous evidence and admissions showed the New Company was incorporated and used to evade the Old Compan…
20 Dec 2018

HKSAR v. SKIN TECH MEDICAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2783
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA164/2018

The magistrate validly amended defective summonses under s27 MO without causing injustice; the trial findings that the pregnancy notice was served on 13 February 2017 and that Ms Yu was terminated on 16 February 2017 were supported by credible evidence (including Dr Cheung and the Termination of Employment document P7); the termination did not fall within s9 EO and therefore contravened s15 EO; the credibility determinations were not plainly wrong; accordingly convictions and fines were upheld and appeals dismissed.
13 Dec 2018

TIANMA MICRO ELECTRONICS (HONG KONG) LTD v. GIONEE (HK) COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA297/2018

Defendant demonstrated an arguable defence of absence of consideration on the affidavit evidence; there was insufficient admissible evidence to infer forbearance to sue or to justify piercing the corporate veil; summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and defendant granted unconditional leave to defend.
24 Nov 2014

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN

Citation

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1584/2012

The judge found the plaintiff's cause of action for the House Commission had not accrued because the profits in respect of House No.12 had not been realised by the pleaded date; the RASOC failed to plead facts establishing proprietary rights in House No.12 or proper crystallisation of profits; proposed amendments remained defective and embarrassing, so leave to reamend was refused and the summons dismissed.
4 Apr 2014

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/2013

The Court held the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant is unsustainable because the pleaded entitlement is contractual and not proprietary, so the action against the 2nd defendant was struck out and the lis pendens vacated; the plaintiff's claims against the 1st defendant were also struck out for being unarguable (proprietary claim) or defective/embarrassing (uncertain accrual), but the plaintiff was given limited leave to apply to re‑amend the ASOC solely to plead the date of accrual of the contractual claim within 42 days.
11 Oct 2013

YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA20/2012

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Tribunal because the Presiding Officer, while finding Lap Tak a sham and identifying control by persons tied to D2, did not make sufficient or clear findings to establish an express or implied employment relationship between D2 (or D1/Liu) and Yu. The correct approach required consideration of whether an implied contract or agency relationship existed; absence of such findings made a rehearing necessary. The court also accepted the parties' agreement that the Tribunal’s arithmetic required correction.