Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominee shareholding

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

庄跃进AND OTHERS v. 白平

Citation

[2026] HKDC 673
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ324/2025

On the pleadings the facts established that the Defendant held the Company shares as bare trustee for the Plaintiffs, service was properly effected at the Defendant's last known addresses and non-parties were given notice as directed; the Defendant filed no defence or acknowledgement; therefore default judgment for a declaration of trust and an order to execute transfer documents was justified and the court may nominate a solicitor under s38A DCO to execute transfers if the Defendant fails to do so.
17 Apr 2023

ROLF-ARNE ÖSTLING v. ROLF SEBASTIAN OSKAR ÖSTLING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP782/2022

The court granted discontinuance but barred the Plaintiff from commencing proceedings in Hong Kong seeking the same or substantially the same relief and refused liberty to apply; the court refused to order indemnity costs because it could not conclude with confidence that the Plaintiff's conduct justified indemnity costs; HK$900,000 of the HK$1.13 million security paid into court was ordered paid to the 1st Defendant forthwith with the balance retained pending agreement or taxation; the Plaintiff must pay the Defendants' costs of the application and there is an order nisi that the costs of th…
30 Nov 2022

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1972/2012

Plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged 5 August 2002 shareholders' agreement: the court found plaintiffs' witnesses not credible and defendants' witnesses reliable; contemporaneous documents and fund‑flow evidence contradicted the plaintiffs' account; therefore no contractual or trust entitlement arose and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.
27 Sept 2022

LO SIU TIM AND ANOTHER v. FITNESS TOGETHER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP766/2021

The plaintiffs were effectively successful: the Nominees were contractually and fiduciarily bound by the Nominee Deed to transfer or vote in accordance with beneficial owners' instructions, franchisor approval and stamp duty concerns did not justify imposing those preconditions, and the Nominees only relented after franchisor intervention. On that basis the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs but declined to award indemnity costs given the overall conduct of the parties.
20 Oct 2021

JOSEPH ROBERT RICHARDSON JR v. RENE VILLENEUVE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3144
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1799/2020

The Declaration of Trust established the Plaintiff as the beneficial owner of the 5,000 shares, the defendants failed to respond or effect transfer, and under s633 the court must exercise its discretion to rectify the register and order registration, issue of certificate and rectification notice to the Registrar in favour of the beneficial owner.
18 Aug 2020

CHU YUE BUN v. LAI SHIU WOON (formerly known as NG LAI SHIU WOON)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA977/2019

Given the totality of the evidence, notably prior sworn affirmations by the plaintiff and his brother that the plaintiff did not beneficially own the shares, the plaintiff's pleading that he 'held and still holds beneficial interest' (and his belated allegation of a January 2019 gift unsupported by corroboration) was plainly unsustainable; it was a case fit for striking out rather than trial, and the Master’s orders were upheld.
23 Apr 2019

XU LIU CHUN v. CHANG JIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3166/2014

Where a trial has concluded and the court has ordered a buy-out because the company’s affairs were conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial, the court has jurisdiction to order an interim payment on account of the purchase price even if the precise quantum is subject to valuation or appeal; the grant of such an order depends on satisfying the court there will ultimately be a pay-out, consideration of appeal risks and protections (eg security, nomineeship, transfer conditions), and appropriate terms to protect parties pending final determination.
21 May 2018

HEROSTAR PROPERTIES LTDDI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG YU PING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2236/2014

The amendment was allowed because, on the available evidence, the plaintiffs had reasonable grounds to plead alternative inconsistent facts (forgery or signing in blank/under misrepresentation) and those alternatives were plausible; the plea was not so inherently unbelievable as to merit refusal under Order 18 rule 12A or to be struck out under the strike‑out test applied to amendments.
3 Nov 2016

KERRY FRANCIS MOORE also known as KERRY MOORE v. JENNEX CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KERRY FRANCIS MOORE also known as KERRY MOORE v. JENNEX CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2109/2015

The court found both Shineland shares were held on trust for Kerry: Raymond had admitted holding one share on trust and Jennex had accepted the other as an addition to the Trust Fund evidenced by the 2004 and 2005 financial statements and conduct; appointors other than Kerry had no authority over the Shineland Trust; accordingly the Jennex held share and the Raymond held share must be transferred to Marketing Trustees Limited and costs awarded on an indemnity basis against Raymond, Correstone and Thomas.
15 Dec 2014

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL34/2013

The court granted leave to amend and to file the supplemental witness statement because the proposed allegations and evidence were relevant to the central disputed issue of beneficial ownership and credibility, were sufficiently particularised, and any prejudice from the lateness could be addressed by costs and case management rather than exclusion of the material.