Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary rights

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2123/2020

Because the plaintiffs held final judgments, the garnishee and charging orders nisi were validly obtained and served, the garnishee did not oppose, and interveners either withdrew or could not establish proprietary priority (Mareva injunctions do not confer such priority), the court must make the garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi absolute and may vary related injunctions to permit enforcement.
12 Nov 2024

陳頌恩對陳瑞芳及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1036
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP120/2024

Permission to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: he did not discharge the burden to establish a common intention constructive trust, his documentary and recorded statements undermined his case, and the District Court judge’s credibility and fact findings were rational and not plainly wrong; accordingly there are no grounds for appellate intervention.
27 Jun 2023

CHAN TZE NGON v. CHAN TSZ KON

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP574/2023

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff on the basis of resulting trust because the evidence established that the plaintiff paid the initial purchase price and all mortgage repayments and repaid the defendant's initial contribution; there was insufficient evidence of a common intention at acquisition and insufficient proof of detriment to ground a constructive trust.
27 Feb 2019

ALLTOGETHER LAND CO LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 564
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP98/2019

Given the evidence that CSB received the shares into its margin account without notice of the lock‑in clause, and that the shares were subject to an equitable charge in favour of CSB enforceable through CCASS, the court exercised its discretion to vary the ex‑parte Mareva injunction to permit CSB to exercise its claimed proprietary rights over the remaining shares; the risk that CSB would ultimately be found to have acted wrongfully was assessed as remote and Alltogether's undertaking was released.
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

HCA939/2015

The plaintiffs' pleaded and supporting allegations, considered in the round with affidavits and other materials, amount in substance to allegations of intentional or reckless dishonesty by the 1st defendant (transfer of beneficial interests into BVI trusts without knowledge/consent and related conduct); accordingly the fraud exception is engaged and the court has no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment under Order 14, so the summary judgment application is dismissed and the issues (including existence of the asserted Hong Kong trust) must proceed to trial.
11 Sept 2013

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN

Citation

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2507/2003

The court refused the proposed amendments that would introduce an implied-term based claim for delivery up of shares and proprietary rights because those claims would be time-barred given the shares were sold in 2000; accordingly prayers (A) and (C) were struck out while other amendments were permitted.
11 Sept 2013

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN, the Administratrix of the Estate of Fattydad Henry, Deceased

Citation

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN, the Administratrix of the Estate of Fattydad Henry, Deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2520/2009

The proposed amendments would introduce a contractual cause of action based on an implied term that was not pleaded at the time of filing and which, on the facts, would revive claims arising from sales in 2000 and thus be time-barred; the court therefore refused to exercise its discretion to allow those aspects of the amendment and struck out prayers (A) and (C) while permitting other amendments.
25 Mar 2013

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1584/2012

The amended statement of claim against D1 failed as a matter of law because occupation of the property does not amount to a sale or realisation of market value and the pleaded contract was for personal advisory services creating only a personal contractual obligation; there is no pleaded proprietary transfer to found a constructive trust, so the claim is plainly unsustainable and amendment would be futile.
30 Oct 2012

HUNG FUNG ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

Citation

HUNG FUNG ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2010

The application for leave was dismissed because the plaintiffs' claim was for unliquidated damages and not a claim to a particular property or proprietary right under s22(1)(a); the conversion argument lacked factual foundation given concurrent findings and the law on conversion is settled; discretionary leave under both limbs of s22(1)(b) was refused and costs were awarded to the defendant.
9 Dec 2011

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/2011

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals because the orders below authorised a sale and vacated the registration of Best Century's provisional agreement in a manner that could determine Best Century's proprietary rights without joining or hearing it; Best Century was entitled to be heard and the lower orders could not stand as made without joinder and appropriate adjudication of the proprietary disputes; appeals allowed with costs.