28 Mar 2023
Defendant failed to establish any real and arguable defence that requires a trial; documentary records and the husband's sworn statements contradicted the defendant's claim to a beneficial interest; the plaintiff is the sole registered owner and lawfully revoked the licence; accordingly the registry decision granting summary judgment was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Mar 2021
Summary judgment was refused because the defendant's case on a contractual licence (the Supplemental Agreement) was not so weak as to be unarguable given the parties' long and complex course of dealings and some supporting contemporaneous indicators; however, on balance of convenience the court granted an interlocutory mandatory injunction compelling delivery of vacant possession on condition plaintiffs pay HK$12,729,000 into court as security (to minimize risk of injustice), and allowed the defendant's joinder application to add the alleged beneficial owners and City Breeze because the propo…
31 Jul 2018
The pleaded facts established that the plaintiff was the victim of an email fraud and had a proprietary interest in the sum transferred to the defendant's BOC account; given the genuine need to protect that interest and BOC's neutrality, the court properly exercised its discretion under Order 19 r 7(1) to enter judgment in default, grant the declaratory relief and make the vesting order, and to award costs (with BOC's costs assessed at HK$5,800 to be borne by the plaintiff).
10 Jul 2018
The court held the agreement was not shown to be illegal or contrary to public policy (distinguishing cases requiring false statutory declarations), the plaintiff had a good arguable case and a proprietary interest by payment, damages were inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured an injunction; accordingly leave to amend was granted and an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out or continuing construction and liaising with government was ordered pending trial.
13 Jun 2018
The court found on the evidence that the funds used to purchase the Tuen Mun property derived from the respondent's father (and family wages) rather than belonging to the intervener; the intervener's evidence was inconsistent and unpersuasive; consequently neither a resulting trust nor a constructive trust in favour of the intervener was established and the legal and beneficial ownership remained with the husband and wife.
16 Oct 2012
The defendant failed to demonstrate any error in the trial judge's factual finding that the deceased was the beneficial owner of Property A (funds were his), therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; the Court also exercised its rule 2A(8) power to bar further re-application under r.2A(7).
2 Mar 2012
The New Shares derived from Angel Wise's FabWay shareholding and therefore fell within the Share Charge Agreement's definition of Related Assets; an equitable charge attached in favour of Stark Moly on allotment, entitling Stark Moly to a declaration and to have the charging order nisi made absolute; a stay was properly refused because Stark Moly is enforcing a proprietary right as a secured creditor and Hong Kong is the appropriate forum to determine the proprietary effect of the charge.
11 Sept 2009
The judge accepted plaintiffs' evidence as credible and defendants' evidence as unreliable, concluding the 1st defendant held legal title as trustee for the 2nd plaintiff; accordingly the 2nd plaintiff has the beneficial interest, is entitled to account for rents, and the purported sale to the 2nd defendant is subject to that equitable interest except for the mortgage-discharge sum which is secured as a charge in favour of the 2nd defendant.
1 Sept 2009
None of the defendants demonstrated an arguable proprietary interest in the $2.5 million: the 1st Defendants' claims were personal, the 3rd Defendant as shareholder had no proprietary claim in the funds, and the 2nd Defendant's asserted 50% interest was inadequately pleaded and undermined by a waiver; allegations of illegality or fraud were irrelevant to the interlocutory determination, so the Plaintiffs' application was allowed.
1 Sept 2009
None of the defendants demonstrated an arguable proprietary interest traceable into the $2.5 million; the 2nd Defendant's pleaded waiver undermined its alleged 50% interest; allegations of illegality and fraud were irrelevant to the interlocutory determination of the proper destination of the stakeholder funds; therefore the plaintiffs' application was allowed and the stakeholder funds were to be paid to the plaintiffs.