Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary remedy

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2025

CHAN TING TING v. GUO GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1928
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4406/2020

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff established unjust enrichment: the 1st Defendant was enriched by funds traceable to the Plaintiff and that enrichment was unjust because the transfers were made without the Plaintiff's knowledge, consent or authority; the 1st Defendant failed to prove the alleged oral agreement and therefore failed to establish the bona fide purchaser and change of position defences; no constructive trust was imposed because tracing to retained funds failed and there was no pleaded wrongdoing or sufficient evidence of knowledge; judgment for Plaintiff for USD134,3…
16 Oct 2025

HAN JOHN ALEXANDER v. HONGKONG AUTOPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2022

On the balance of probabilities Autopal failed to discharge the burden of proving the asserted gold sale and that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice or that it changed position in good faith; accordingly the USD900,000 is held on trust for the Plaintiff (traceable property) and the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, an account and inquiry and payment of any sums found due together with interest; Omega is liable for breach of contract but damages are limited to the pleaded sum of USD900,000 with interest from 18 July 2023.
9 Sept 2024

FRANCK CHRISTOPHE SCHULDERS v. MESSODIE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1334/2023

The court refused to grant the proprietary declaration or default judgment because the pleadings did not establish that the Payments remained in the 1st Defendant's ownership and there was evidence they were transferred elsewhere; the plaintiff was granted a brief adjournment to amend pleadings to pursue an unjust enrichment claim properly.
8 May 2023

RPB SA (a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of Argentina) v. XINWANGYI TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA150/2020

The 8th defendant's pleaded defence and affirmations were judged shadowy and verging on incredible such that no unconditional triable issue was established; however because some documents (the three Bullion Agreements) were produced and could not be dismissed as forged on affidavits alone, the appropriate course was to grant conditional leave to defend, conditioned on full payment into court of the D8 sums (US$880,010 or HKD equivalent) within 14 days, and variation of the freezing injunction to permit withdrawal for that payment; failure to comply results in judgment for the plaintiff.
24 Jun 2022

DINGWAY INVESTMENT LTD (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO. (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA309/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonably arguable tracing claim linking the sale proceeds of the land to the plaintiffs' asserted original property (the shares); the shares did not give the plaintiff a proprietary interest in the land or its sale proceeds and constructive trusteeship of shares did not establish a proprietary right to those proceeds in the factual and legal context; there was no evidence of abuse or non‑compliance with Mareva injunctions to justify extended third‑party bank disclosure; therefore the proposed grounds of…
15 Jun 2022

SUNG CHUNG KWUN AND OTHERS v. ADDCHANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2385/2017

The court refused to strike out the pleaded parts. The SOC sufficiently pleads proprietary rights (choses in action) under the 2nd Mortgage Agreement and Collateral Repayment Agreement — including the right to discharge the mortgage and to the return of an unencumbered Tower — and pleads Poon's breaches that could have caused those rights to be wrongfully transferred to Champion. It is not plain and obvious the knowing receipt claim is unsustainable; the matters are factually and legally complex and for trial. Accordingly the strike out application was dismissed and costs ordered against Cham…
9 Dec 2019

UNI TRANS ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED, INC v. JOYFUL HIGH CO. LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1665
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4731/2019

The pleaded facts established that the Sum was obtained by fraud and was therefore held by the defendant on constructive trust for the plaintiff; given the plaintiff's genuine need to earmark the funds and prevent prejudice from other creditors, the court exercised its discretion to grant declaratory and ancillary relief on the default summons.
31 Oct 2018

WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC AND ANOTHER v. TIAN RUIDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1943/2018

Service was effective and no defence was filed; the pleaded facts established that the US$9,000,000 was paid pursuant to a fraudulent instruction and therefore paid under a mistake of fact; the pleaded material supported a claim of knowing receipt and a proprietary interest entitling plaintiffs to restitution and an account; accordingly default judgment and a declaration to protect the proprietary claim and continuation of the interim injunction were appropriate without trial.
29 Jun 2018

SULTANA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC. v. HONGKONG FUHENG TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA661/2018

On the pleaded facts, which show an unauthorised fraudulent transfer of US$240,250 into the defendant's HSBC account and that the funds remain there, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in default for that sum, a declaration that the funds are held on constructive trust for the plaintiff, and continuation of the Mareva injunction to preserve assets pending payment or further order.
26 Apr 2016

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA623/2015

The fraud exception is engaged because the plaintiffs' pleaded case and supporting materials, taken in substance, impute intentional or reckless dishonesty by the 1st defendant in transferring the plaintiffs' beneficial interests in CSI into BVI discretionary trusts without knowledge or consent; accordingly the court has no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment under Order 14 and the Order 14 summons must be dismissed; the existence of the alleged Hong Kong trust raises triable issues requiring a full trial.