Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misappropriation of assets

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2025

RE SUNNI INTERNATIONAL LTD (In Liquidation)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2925
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW121/2013

Given the suspicious circumstances surrounding the written contracts, the lack of payment evidence, the Liquidator's reasonable need to investigate ownership and whereabouts of the Assets and the limited, non-oppressive scope proposed, the court ordered Ip to attend and be examined under s286C because the information is reasonably required for the Liquidator to perform his functions.
21 Oct 2022

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

On the available evidence the Plaintiffs demonstrated a genuine and strong case of large‑scale misappropriation supported by multiple independent documentary and witness sources; ordering security would require the alleged victims to pay to protect the alleged perpetrator, and the defendant's contempts, absconding and foreign indictment further militated against granting security; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the security application and decline to order security for costs.
28 Sept 2022

CHAN CHI CHUNG v. JACKY FUNG CHI CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1043/2022

On the face of the statement of claim the statutory criteria under ss 732-733 are satisfied: the plaintiff is a member, the claim alleges the sole director misappropriated company assets and breached fiduciary duties (in excess of HK$13 million), and it is in the interests of the company that leave be granted; accordingly leave to commence the derivative action is granted.
26 Aug 2021

SUNNI INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WIN HARVEST ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2418
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2380/2018

At interlocutory pre-trial stage the court refused to strike out in bulk the liquidator's and applicant's contested witness statement passages because: (1) a liquidator is entitled to give evidence of investigative findings and to summarise documents even if the content is hearsay, (2) hearsay in civil cases is admissible subject to s47 EO and the court should not preclude such material wholesale before trial where weight is the issue, (3) the Wetherspoon principle permitting limitation of commentary on documents is not absolute and may be relaxed in complex liquidation litigation, and (4) gr…
22 Jan 2020

PROGETTO JEWELLERY CO LTD v. LAU CHIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2548/2014

On the evidence (documentary, CCTV and witness credibility) the court preferred Progetto’s witnesses, accepted PJ’s stock and banking calculations and found that Joy misappropriated finished goods and failed to account for sales; Joy Design was a nominee/agent of Progetto and not an independent proprietor of the diverted goods; Joy was negligent in the Italy seizure; many bank withdrawals were not substantiated as legitimate business expenses and must be repaid; JD's counterclaims fail because JD held no separate beneficial interest. Pre-judgment interest was ordered from dates appropriate to…
31 Jan 2018

TANG SIU CHOI v. MAN LUNG TEXTILES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1351/2017

On the face of the application the allegations disclose serious questions to be tried and, in the absence of an independent bona fide board decision not to sue, it is prima facie in the company's interests to grant leave; accordingly leave was granted for the applicant to bring the proposed statutory derivative action on behalf of Man Lung and the applicant's costs of the leave application were ordered to be borne by the respondent Tam (order nisi); determination of indemnity of future derivative-action costs from company assets was deferred.
2 Dec 2016

FB MAITREYA FUND (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) v. YIU TSZ NGAR

Citation

FB MAITREYA FUND (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) v. YIU TSZ NGAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1163/2015

The payments and transfers were prima facie misapplications of company assets procured by the defendant. The defendant succeeded in establishing a triable entitlement to fees totalling US$5,422,138.52 but failed to show that the settlement agreements, the Singapore proceedings, or the fact that payments were made to MIML defeated the plaintiff's claims. Accordingly there was no bona fide triable defence to prevent summary judgment, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the net recoverable sum after deducting the arguable fees entitlement.
15 Jan 2016

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

Plaintiffs established serious issues to be tried on breaches of fiduciary duty and related misconduct, demonstrated that damages would be inadequate and that balance of convenience favoured injunctive and disclosure relief; accordingly the interlocutory proprietary injunctions were continued/granted, disclosure orders were made, prohibitory injunction restraining use of the unlawfully altered articles was granted and corrective amendments were approved with power for the Registrar to effect them under s25A High Court Ordinance if the Zhangs failed to do so.
11 Feb 2014

LUNG KAM CHIU v. WAH HING STATIONERY MANUFACTORY LTD

Citation

LUNG KAM CHIU v. WAH HING STATIONERY MANUFACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW73/2013

Where a company establishes genuine, serious and substantial cross-claims whose quantum is equal to or greater than the petitioning debt, the court will restrain or strike out the winding-up petition; here the company proved cross-claims (reimbursement of legal fees and claims for misappropriation and diversion) sufficient to defeat the petition, and the CFS and Board resolution did not bar the petition.
24 Sept 2013

MKKWH v. RKSH

Citation

MKKWH v. RKSH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2012

Non‑marital expenditure can be considered as conduct under section 7(1) but an add‑back (re‑attribution) requires clear evidence of dissipation that is wanton/reckless/extravagant or otherwise obvious and gross; absent that threshold and given the trial judge's findings on post‑separation contribution and lack of recklessness, refusal to depart from equal distribution was not plainly wrong. Conversely, a claw‑back to capture a realistic redevelopment windfall is justified to achieve fairness and was imposed in this case, and the payment figure for share transfer was corrected to reflect the w…