Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misfeasance (s276)

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2024

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF DAYS IMPEX LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. MAHESH NANIK DAYARAM

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3386
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW298/2011

The judge held that (1) the 161 import loan applications were procured by false invoices and the fund‑flow analysis showed circular remittance back to the group indicating fictitious transactions; (2) the criminal conviction was a subsisting conviction admissible in these proceedings and shifted the burden; (3) on the evidence the respondent, as head of finance, signed/authorized applications, controlled remittance instructions and must have known of or orchestrated the circular fund flow and was therefore knowingly a party to carrying on the companies’ businesses with intent to defraud credi…
5 Sept 2017

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA960/2015

The court held that the consent order was made pursuant to s200(5) not s205 and therefore did not operate as a statutory release of the former liquidators; the Sanction Decision sanctioning the settlement did not preclude separate claims for misappropriation/negligence not resolved by that sanction; HCA960/2015 was struck out because the pleaded loss was merely reflective (company’s loss reflected in shareholder diminution) and thus plainly unsustainable, whereas HCA962/2015 pleaded direct company causes of action (misappropriation of shareholdings) and could not be struck out; limitation, no…
25 Feb 2015

RE HUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD

Citation

RE HUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/2014

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. The court held that the correct threshold for an s276 inquiry is a prima facie sufficient basis to warrant inquiry (not the full strike out standard), but on the facts the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing an s276 inquiry was within a reasonable ambit: the liquidator acted reasonably in approving the settlement given lack of funding, speculative claim value and commercial considerations. A common law derivative action cannot be maintained against a liquidator appointed personally; leave under s168BC to bring a statutory derivative action wa…
1 Jun 2006

RE OCEAN TIME DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

RE OCEAN TIME DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW338/2004

The court exercised its discretion to allow GGI to appeal out of time; it accepted audited accounts and supporting evidence as sufficient to prove GGI a creditor of Tinson (HK$41,911,916) and Goldgood (HK$36,965,867) and Ocean Time to the extent of HK$875,155, but rejected evidence for additional sums where unsupported; the tort/fiduciary claim against the liquidators was struck out because the losses pleaded were purely reflective of Ocean Time’s loss and thus not recoverable by GGI individually, the proper remedy being misfeasance proceedings under s276.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF DAYS IMPEX LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. MAHESH NANIK DAYARAM

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER

RE HUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD

RE OCEAN TIME DEVELOPMENT LTD