Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary claims

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2020

HWANG JOON SANG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1529/2019

In an appropriate case the Court will actively approve and adopt a procedure permitting banks to comply with court-ordered disclosure by uploading electronic documents to a court-approved data room where it is fair, just, reasonable and promotes cost-effectiveness and access to justice; plaintiffs were entitled to further disclosure and the court approved the proposed data-room process while leaving discretion to individual banks to choose the method of compliance.
3 Jan 2020

UNITED KESVICK LTD v. TSANG WING FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA804/2019

Adjournment was refused because defendants had ample time to plead since service of the statement of claim, no arguable legal defence in law had been shown, and permitting delay would prejudice the prompt administration of the estate; the summons to enter default judgment (including determination of proprietary claims) should therefore proceed.
26 Sept 2019

MICHAEL JOHN UREN v. GCHAIN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1301
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1987/2019

Service was effective under s827; defendants did not acknowledge service or file any response so pleadings deemed admitted; pleaded facts established that defendants received funds under the same fraudulent scheme within close temporal proximity and by similar means, amounting on the pleadings to a tort of conspiracy to defraud; accordingly default judgment entered against each defendant individually and jointly and severally, with declaratory relief to secure proprietary claims and summary costs awarded.
17 Jun 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The injunction as to the Tsang Properties and the One Island Place sale proceeds was discharged because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Chabra requirements: they did not establish good reason to suppose the properties were amenable to execution against Mr Tsang nor show a real risk of dissipation by the non-party (Ms Chui) or by Mr Tsang sufficient to make the exceptional Chabra freezing relief just and convenient, and material nondisclosure/misstatement at the ex parte hearing (including the incorrect assertion that properties were unencumbered) independently required discharge of the injun…
6 Sept 2017

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MO SHAU WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MO SHAU WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA353/2013

Leave to appeal was granted in part (paragraphs 2 and 3 seeking orders to liquidate specified securities and remit proceeds) because CPSL demonstrated a reasonably arguable interest/standing and the factual scenario lacked precedent, justifying appellate guidance; leave was refused in respect of paragraph 1 (allegation CPSL was obstructing/impeding) as the appeal on that point was fanciful. Costs of the application ordered to be costs in the cause of the appeal.
17 Jun 2016

COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2174/2014

On objective analysis of the documents and affirmations the 2nd–4th defendants failed to provide a full historical trail of the Monies from the SCB accounts, their explanations (including mental allocation) were not credible, and consequently the court ordered them to file corrective affidavits and produce unredacted bank statements and identify payees of specified payments to enable asset tracing and preservation.
15 Dec 2015

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. THE BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. THE BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW435/2012

Most of the categories of documents sought did not satisfy the statutory test of 'relating to the company' under s221(3); the liquidators already had sufficient information from earlier bank productions to decide whether to pursue claims, and ordering the banks' staff to undergo oral examination on compliance and internal procedures would be oppressive and give the liquidators an undue litigation advantage; accordingly only limited document production (the narrow category that does relate to the company) and interrogatories were ordered, oral examinations were refused, and costs ordered nisi…
2 Apr 2015

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW103/2015

The application for further extension was refused because the Disclosure Order is necessary to support paragraph 3(2) of the Injunction Order given evidence suggesting fraud by those controlling the 1st and/or 8th respondents; the order falls within proper legal parameters (not limited to proprietary claims), no prejudice was demonstrated by respondents, and the petitioner’s legitimate interest as a 30% indirect shareholder justifies preservation and disclosure of the relevant assets.
28 Jan 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV93/2012

Leave to appeal refused. Top Selection is not entitled to appeal as of right under s22(1)(a) because the orders operated immediately only on the transfer of nominal shares whose value was not quantifiable without further valuation or assessment and therefore failed the immediacy and quantification requirements; discretionary leave to appeal was refused for both applicants because the questions raised were fact‑sensitive, not reasonably arguable and not of great general or public importance. Costs ordered nisi against the applicants on a party and party basis with a certificate for two counsel.
21 Jan 2010

WHARF LTD AND OTHERS v. LAU YUEN HOW AND OTHERS

Citation

WHARF LTD AND OTHERS v. LAU YUEN HOW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1535/2008

The application to release stakeheld sale proceeds was dismissed because the 2nd Defendant failed the first limb of the Ostrich two-stage test by not adducing full and frank evidence that no other funds were available to meet legal costs and, alternatively, the court concluded on the interlocutory material that there was a strong prima facie proprietary claim over the proceeds so the balance of injustice favoured the plaintiffs.