1 Apr 2025
Because the liquidators clarified the precise sums and for the reasons given in the court's 24 January 2025 decision, the court ordered interest at 1% over Hong Kong prime from 12 December 2011 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment, and ordered payment within 28 days.
1 Apr 2025
The court ordered that the respondent pay interest on the specified sums at 1% over Hong Kong prime from 12 December 2011 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment; payment of the judgment to be made within 28 days.
18 Oct 2024
The application to adduce fresh evidence fails the first Ladd v Marshall condition because the evidence (the alleged Oral Agreement and the corroborating affirmation of the Company director) could with reasonable diligence have been adduced at the hearing below; accordingly leave to adduce the new affirmations is refused and AREL's summons (and appeal) is dismissed.
2 Aug 2024
The documented loan agreement and purported share charge were sham instruments created as a pretext to sequester Gold Brilliant’s shares; no monies were advanced by Great Bliss, the charge was inoperative, and consequently the assignment to Seashore conveyed no legal or equitable interest in the shares; therefore declarations that the loan and charge were shams and that Seashore acquired no interest are warranted, and specified sums remain due from Gold Brilliant to Rich Region and Concept Pioneer.
2 Aug 2024
The loan agreement and the share charge were sham instruments, no monies were advanced by Great Bliss to Gold Brilliant, consequently the charge never conveyed any legal or equitable interest to Great Bliss and the subsequent assignment to Seashore could not transfer any interest; therefore declarations were made to that effect and Seashore’s counterclaim dismissed; specified loan amounts owed by Gold Brilliant to Rich Region and Concept Pioneer were accepted as due.
18 Jun 2024
Applicants are ordinarily resident abroad, appear to have no assets in Hong Kong, there is no enforcement convention with Greece, and they failed to file any evidential material or prosecute the summons diligently; accordingly it was just to order security for costs in the sum of HK$700,000, stay proceedings pending payment and dismissal if security is not provided, together with costs orders on an indemnity basis assessed at HK$140,000 (nisi).
11 Jun 2024
The Petitions under s.724 CO were dismissed because Wong/Cheng failed to prove the alleged unfairly prejudicial acts by Lo/Pan; the court found the companies had operated as a group and a quasi‑partnership existed but no consent requirement existed; Lo/Pan’s changes were bona fide responses to NHEL’s collapse precipitated by Wong’s misconduct (notably causing Yibao not to pay and refusal to assist with regulatory Combined Licence). Separately, the court found Wong breached fiduciary duties by transferring HIL trademarks to Harsen China, procuring registration of similar marks, competing throu…
26 Jun 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the winding‑up order and liquidation rendered the challenge academic and there was no public interest or reasonable prospect of success to justify granting leave.
23 Feb 2023
The Court was satisfied on the evidence and contractual documentation that the Company acted as trustee of client assets and that the JLs had taken reasonable steps to return those assets; accordingly the Court exercised its powers under sections 56 and 62 of the Trustee Ordinance to permit withdrawal and deposit of CCASS share certificates with the Court, to permit sale or disposal (including forfeiture) of FinEX Fund shares if unclaimed after three months and of other securities whose certificates cannot be withdrawn, and to permit payment into Court of unclaimed cash and sale proceeds.
19 Sept 2022
Because Lucky Ford has been in compulsory liquidation and there is reason to believe it would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, and because on balance it was fair and just in all circumstances to require security while taking account of overlap and lack of apportionment, the court ordered security for costs payable into court but substantially reduced the quantum sought to a broad‑brush figure of HK$1,500,000 and imposed compliance and dismissal consequences for non‑payment.