Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary relief

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2024

CHAN WING YAN AND ANOTHER v. JP-EX CRYPTO ASSET PLATFORM PTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1628
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2977/2024

USDT is property capable of trust; on the pleaded facts the three certainties are satisfied because the Platform segregated balances, retained private keys and made representations amounting to an objective intention to hold users' crypto-assets for their benefit; therefore D2 held the specified USDT deposits on express trust for P1, breached trustee duties by transferring the deposits away, and plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive proprietary relief and summary costs on default judgment.
30 Aug 2024

鑫都集團有限公司 v. U.K. PROLIFIC PETROLEUM GROUP COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP666/2024

The court granted interim‑interim injunctions restraining UKPPGC, Cypress and Wang from dealing with the specified UKPPGC shares, ListCo shares and convertible bonds because there are serious triable issues as to the Plaintiff's 20% proprietary entitlement under the 2015 Memorandum, a real risk of dissipation, the shares are not readily replaceable, the Plaintiff can give an undertaking in damages, and the court's s45 jurisdiction extends to third parties in appropriate cases albeit to be exercised cautiously.
15 Mar 2024

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2022

Tracing is not a free-standing basis for broad Order 24 discovery; whether tracing-related discovery is appropriate depends on whether tracing is a live issue at the imminent trial (ie whether the plaintiff can identify specific property or has a proprietary injunction) — in this case tracing was not a live issue so broad tracing discovery was refused, but limited discovery was granted where the defendants' non-admission made bank statements and certain correspondence relevant and necessary to issues in the imminent trial.
22 Feb 2024

IQ SOLUTIONS INC v. WKJ LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1791/2023

Default judgment was entered for the Plaintiff because the Statement of Claim was served and no defence filed; on the pleaded facts the funds in the defendant's Dah Sing Bank account were held on constructive trust for the Plaintiff; declarations to that effect were granted and the proprietary and Mareva injunctions were continued for six months to secure recovery; a minor calculation error reducing the proprietary declaration by HKD 400 was corrected and accrued interest of USD 1.11 was excluded from the declaration.
21 Jul 2023

WRE INVESTMENTS LLC v. SMW LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1746/2022

The court concluded on the affidavit and documentary evidence that the remittance resulted from fraud, the Defendant received and retained the funds with no credible evidence of a legitimate underlying transaction, public records contradicted the Defendant's shipment evidence and the Defendant's account showed no outgoing payments; accordingly the Defendant holds the US$3,550,000 on constructive trust for the Plaintiff and summary judgment was appropriate.
28 Apr 2022

NICO CONSTANTIJN ANTONIUS SAMARA v. STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN also known as STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN, STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN and STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1254
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA902/2018

On the admitted and probative documentary and ledger evidence the plaintiff transferred the stated bitcoins and advanced the loans, the defendant acted as the plaintiff’s sales agent and, by failing to account and by misapplying assets, committed repudiatory breaches of fiduciary duty; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to declarations that the bitcoins, sale proceeds and fruits were held on trust, proprietary and ancillary relief (accounts, transfer of identified assets, equitable compensation if necessary), repayment of loans with interest and indemnity costs.
16 Jul 2021

TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2094
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3017/2017

The judge held that the 1st Defendant's clear, flagrant and persistent non‑compliance with the Disclosure Order, the implausible excuses for a substantial delay, and conduct creating a real risk of injustice constituted special and unusual features justifying an award of indemnity costs; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to require the 1st Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis with a certificate for two counsel.
4 Mar 2015

HONG KONG HUA QIAO CO LTD v. CHAM KA TAI

Citation

HONG KONG HUA QIAO CO LTD v. CHAM KA TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV178/2013

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the Deceased made clear promises accompanied by acts (delivery of title deeds and steps to transfer shares) and that the respondent relied to her detriment; these facts satisfied the elements of promissory estoppel and entitled the respondent to equitable relief in the form of transfer of the legal title to Foon Lok Mansions and 300 company shares; treating the pleaded estoppel as promissory estoppel was not unfair and the relief was a proper exercise of discretion to satisfy the equity without being disproportionate.
18 Apr 2012

SUPER MASTER INVESTMENTS LTD v. POWER APEX LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUPER MASTER INVESTMENTS LTD v. POWER APEX LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2496/2011

Where a plaintiff establishes a good arguable proprietary claim to assets and the defendants are not shown to be bona fide purchasers without notice, the court should grant or restore an interlocutory Mareva injunction to preserve the assets pending trial; disclosure orders may be granted but limited to what is necessary to give effect to the injunction.
5 Apr 1984

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUI LOK

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUI LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA25/1978

O.38 r.22-27 must be construed to permit, on contested applications, determination of (1) whether the witness falls within a rule 25 category, (2) if so whether he can be called, and (3) if he can be called whether he should be called; where a witness is beyond the seas but can attend and should be called the court must reject admission of an unsworn written statement; applying that test the defendant's statement (he could and should attend) was rejected and the father's statement (unfit to attend) was admitted; on the substantive claim Crown is entitled to judgment for a specific sum, an acc…