Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misapplication of funds

Legal area

Court

7 May 2020

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG WAI KWONG DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 727
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1227/2011

The Court found that the conduct of the three directors fell within s214(1)(b),(c) and (d) (defalcation, misfeasance/other misconduct and unfairly prejudicial conduct) because of systemic failures, uncommercial related‑party transactions and misapplication of funds (including use of HK$622m of a HK$1bn syndicated facility). Disqualification orders were warranted for public protection and deterrence: David Wong 9 years, Peter Lee 6 years, Tony Chik 6 years from the date of judgment. The Court declined to make a compensation order under s214(2)(e) because causation, remoteness, time‑bar and asc…
11 Oct 2019

TES ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. NGAI, SAU MING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA50/2016

The court held that the proposed amendments should be permitted in part because the admissions and deletions either matched the plaintiff's pleaded case or amounted to legal submissions relating to disputed facts that are properly resolved at trial, and therefore the amendments were not objectionable or unduly prejudicial.
2 Sept 2014

LEE KWOK KEUNG v. CHICK POON LUN ANTONY AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE KWOK KEUNG v. CHICK POON LUN ANTONY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2388/2012

The plaintiff was not a member of the union on the facts (no application, no fees paid, absent from registers and historical records) and therefore lacked locus standi to bring the derivative/representative proceedings; estoppel failed because the representations relied on were unauthorized acts of the deceased president and could not bind the union or the 1st defendant; claim was accordingly struck out for want of standing.
22 Oct 1980

CITIBANK, N.A. v. JAMES S. LEE

Citation

CITIBANK, N.A. v. JAMES S. LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA792/1979

The Court refused to stay or strike out the Hong Kong proceedings because the Guam appellate judgment was given after the Hong Kong action commenced and did not present a clear case for dismissal; relevant discretionary factors (defendant served in Hong Kong, local assets, documents signed locally, absence of reciprocal enforcement, enforcement and reputational considerations, and plaintiffs' need to pursue remedies in multiple fora) meant the action should proceed, but paragraph 13 relying on the now-reversed Guam judgment was struck out and certain restraints were modified or retained pendi…

Hong Kong Case Law

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG WAI KWONG DAVID AND OTHERS

TES ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. NGAI, SAU MING AND OTHERS

LEE KWOK KEUNG v. CHICK POON LUN ANTONY AND ANOTHER

CITIBANK, N.A. v. JAMES S. LEE