Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partnership property

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2025

KISHIN SAMTANI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF NARIAN SAMTANI, DECEASED v. CHANDERSEN TIKAMDAS SAMTANI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2011

Plaintiff's claims were dismissed because he failed to prove the alleged family Understanding or Indian tradition, failed to prove that the disputed properties were partnership assets of the 1989 partnership (most were acquired before the 1989 partnership or not shown to be brought into the partnership and there was no evidence of transfer of assets between successive firms), failed to prove the Evelyn Towers Agreement, and failed to prove misappropriation given the credible contemporaneous evidence of the CESCO payment/commission arrangement; conversely the evidence showed Narian had been in…
8 May 2015

TANG CHAI ON AND ANOTHER v. TANG SING KI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG CHAI ON AND ANOTHER v. TANG SING KI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA207/2013

Court preferred the plaintiffs' witnesses and contemporaneous documentary evidence, found a partnership formed about 1998 for leasing and subletting specified land lots with equal sharing of profits and expenses, held plaintiffs authorised to let and sublet, found defendants breached the partnership by failing to account since about January 2013, admitted and gave weight to the January 2013 letter, dismissed defendants' counterclaim for forgery, and ordered judgment for the plaintiffs with costs to follow the event.
19 Mar 2013

YAU WAH HING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN KAY MING

Citation

YAU WAH HING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN KAY MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2012

The Court held the exclusive right under the PSL was partnership property under s22 of the Partnership Ordinance and the Defendant held that right for the partnership (equitable trust or fiduciary/accounting obligation); the partnership did not automatically dissolve in 1992 and continued to subsist; the sealed order was amended to delete any reference to licence No.18633C because relief in respect of that licence/business was not pleaded and proper parties had not been joined; paragraphs declaring precise share entitlements and ordering compensation (paras (3) and (4)) were set aside and the…
20 Dec 2000

Lau Hing Wan and Another v. So Wing Yee and Another

Citation

Lau Hing Wan and Another v. So Wing Yee and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ12206/2000

On the face of the pleading the plaintiffs pleaded facts (including clause 6) that could show the defendants' alleged premature withdrawal vested exclusive possession in the plaintiffs; given the high threshold to strike out, paragraph 13 could succeed and is not so hopeless as to be struck out under Order 18, Rule 19.
29 Sept 1988

CHEUNG YAU BOR AND OTHERS v. WONG FOOK AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG YAU BOR AND OTHERS v. WONG FOOK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/1988

The appeal is allowed in part because the trial judge erred in resolving a critical factual dispute (whether the appellant received notice) on conflicting affidavit evidence without calling and cross-examining witnesses; that unresolved factual issue is determinative of the validity of the majority's election and therefore the May 9 order (except paragraph 4) is set aside and the matter remitted to the trial judge to make the factual finding and, if necessary, reconsider appropriate relief in light of the Transport Department's discretion.
13 Aug 1986

VINCY ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. v. WORLD UNION DEVELOPMENT LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

VINCY ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. v. WORLD UNION DEVELOPMENT LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4456/1986

The ex parte proprietary injunctions and the Mareva-style freezing injunction were discharged because the writ did not plead any proprietary right, the pleadings and affirmation were vague and inconsistent (notably an oral partnership asserted but not clearly pleaded), and there was insufficient and speculative evidence to establish the good arguable case and risk of dissipation required for a Mareva injunction; the injunction against the bank account was particularly inappropriate because it paralysed the defendant's business and was not properly limited.
15 Dec 1980

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1149/1980

Action No.2015/1980 did not disclose a claim to specific proprietary interests in the scheduled land registrable as lites pendentes; the plaintiff's pleaded case was for monetary remedies and interlocutory injunctions against disposition which do not amount to a registrable proprietary claim, and many registered owners were not parties — accordingly the lis pendens registrations were improperly made and must be vacated.
15 Dec 1980

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1084/1980

The action H.C. No.2015 of 1980 did not assert a proprietary right to specific land or an interest in land sufficient to register as a lis pendens against the listed properties; the plaintiff's claims were essentially monetary/trust/account claims and any remedy against the properties would be by execution or post-judgment charge, therefore the registrations were not registrable and must be vacated.