Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rights issue

Legal area

Court

9 May 2025

SHIH PAK TAU v. SZE SHUN KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP495/2024

Clause 1(7) was properly construed as operative only while D2's repayment obligations under the Agreement remained outstanding; the loan had been repaid so no prior consent from the plaintiff was required for the allotment, the EGM notice was sufficient to state the general nature of the business, and there was no evidence D1 acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.
5 Jan 2024

ZHU BIN v. THOUSAND VANTAGE INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 70
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1673/2023

The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate bad faith or breach of fiduciary duty by the board, failed to show a serious issue to be tried let alone a likelihood of success at trial, and there was no evidential foundation that SH Jianchen would contribute or that the board's failure to commission a liquidation analysis amounted to a breach; accordingly the court would not interfere with bona fide management decisions; costs ordered nisi against the plaintiff.
1 Dec 2023

RE E-HOUSE (CHINA) ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1209/2023

The Scheme was sanctioned because it served a permissible purpose, creditors were correctly classed, the meetings were properly convened in substance notwithstanding accidental non-compliance, Scheme Creditors received sufficient information, the statutory majorities approved the Scheme, and on a commercial comparison the Scheme delivers materially higher recoveries than liquidation; concerns about releases, blocked creditors and outstanding conditions were addressed sufficiently to justify the exercise of the Court’s discretion to sanction.
25 Oct 2019

FOUNTAIN II LTD v. PING AN SECURITIES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1866/2019

The court accepted that the petitioner holding 40,000 shares had prima facie locus to bring an unfair prejudice petition and that prior knowledge of alleged breaches did not necessarily bar relief; the petition raised arguable issues of unfair prejudice and breach of fiduciary duty warranting further consideration and assessment of the balance of convenience for interim relief.
2 Nov 2006

WINNIE HO YUEN KI v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

WINNIE HO YUEN KI v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/2006

The Court held that the SFC properly considered the complaints, correctly concluded that key matters were outside its jurisdiction or lacked merit, and lawfully exercised its discretion not to investigate; there was no basis for judicial review of that discretionary decision and the appeal was dismissed.
9 Sept 2005

LEUNG ALFRED CHEUKWAH v. UNITY INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

LEUNG ALFRED CHEUKWAH v. UNITY INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1885/2005

The court found no serious question to be tried as to breach of directors' duties based on share price decline or asset reduction and held there is no legal principle prohibiting connected shareholders from voting that would justify an interlocutory injunction; accordingly the balance of convenience did not favour restraint and the application was refused.
17 Apr 1997

TO SIU LUN v. CHIU CHEE KAN PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

TO SIU LUN v. CHIU CHEE KAN PETER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1643/1996

The court ordered that discovery be limited to the petitioner's financial documents relating to May 1990 and May 1995 because the respondents provided no justification for discovery covering earlier three-year periods; the respondents' alternative date submissions were rejected and costs were apportioned such that the petitioner pays costs up to receipt of the respondents' solicitors' letter of 9 April 1997 and thereafter the respondents pay the petitioner's costs.
21 Nov 1995

SCIC LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOMEI INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SCIC LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOMEI INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11427/1995

The application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish an arguable case that the rights issue was undertaken for an improper purpose; the judge declined to draw the necessary inferences from the pleaded facts, found no evidence of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured intervention, observed that excess rights were minimal and that shares could be acquired on the market, and therefore refused to restrain the defendants' voting rights.