Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Share transfer dispute

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2025

YINGHENG CO LTD v. SANG KANGQIAO

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA674/2025

The court found that there are serious issues to be tried on the Plaintiff's proprietary claim because the Draft SPA and surrounding evidence are equivocal and do not show a concluded sale; damages would be inadequate as the shares represent a controlling stake; balance of convenience favours preservation of the shares; accordingly an interlocutory proprietary injunction and ancillary disclosure were granted, with the Plaintiff ordered to fortify its undertaking by payment of HK$1,000,000 into court and specific costs directions given.
22 Jan 2018

趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3071/2016

The Court refused the Order 29 preservation application because the Defendants did not have possession of the originals (they were affirmed to have been handed to PRC police) and because the Plaintiffs’ objective could be achieved by Order 24; accordingly the exercise of discretion to make an Order 29 preservation order was declined and the Court ordered disclosure of copies of six Disputed Documents and adjourned the Order 24 application with directions for pleadings/affirmations.
2 Jun 2017

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1524/2012

The Registrar exercised the court’s discretion under Order 23 RHC and found that circumstances had materially changed since the prior consent order (increase in trial length to 14 days, expert evidence, separate legal representation and interlocutory work) such that the prior security (HK$1.1m) was plainly insufficient; accordingly further security of HK$1,200,000 was ordered to be paid into court within 90 days, proceedings stayed pending payment, with costs in the cause and case management directions for a 14‑day trial set down.
23 Dec 2013

ZHANG XIUHONG v. LIU WENCHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHANG XIUHONG v. LIU WENCHEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2118/2012

The application for an anti-suit injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 1st defendant commenced the mainland action in bad faith to frustrate the Hong Kong proceedings or that there was a legitimate need to protect the Hong Kong proceedings; the mainland forum had strong connections to the subject matter and the alleged conduct did not warrant interfering with foreign proceedings.
10 May 2013

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2011

Although the plaintiff's ex-parte affidavits involved material non-disclosure about concurrent PRC proceedings, the court exercised its discretion not to set aside the ex-parte order because Hong Kong was nonetheless the appropriate forum under the SPAs, the defendants acknowledged service, and there was insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside; however, because PRC Action No 1 was genuine and at an advanced stage and likely to affect the texture of the Hong Kong claims, the court granted an interim stay for a limited period of six months pending the PRC judgment.
7 Dec 2012

TRANSOCEAN MARITIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TRANSOCEAN MARITIME GROUP HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRANSOCEAN MARITIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TRANSOCEAN MARITIME GROUP HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2012

The judge correctly exercised her discretion on forum non conveniens: Hong Kong had only a fortuitous connection (bank accounts), the real disputes arose in Shanghai with close BVI connections, witness convenience and the relevance of BVI/PRC law were properly assessed, and therefore Hong Kong was not the clearly more appropriate forum; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
8 Mar 2012

TRANSOCEAN MARTIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. TRANSOCEAN MARTIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRANSOCEAN MARTIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. TRANSOCEAN MARTIME GROUP HOLDINGS (HK) CO., LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2169/2011

The court re-granted the disclosure order because the parties had proceeded on a common understanding at the return-day hearing that such disclosure was required; it refused the plaintiffs' unless order because there was technically no existing obligation at that time; and it held that the assets already frozen by the injunction together with the undertakings and security offered were sufficient to protect the plaintiffs pending the final hearing, so further disclosure and interrogation of fund movements were refused and adjourned to the substantive hearing date.
1 Dec 2011

LI SHU CHUNG v. HONG KONG PAK TAT TRADING CO

Citation

LI SHU CHUNG v. HONG KONG PAK TAT TRADING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1928/2011

The court found the petitioning creditor established a prima facie claim arising from the unpaid purchase price for Shenzhen Lianda shares and the Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds; jurisdiction existed because the company was registered under Part XI, directors and petitioner resident in Hong Kong and assets could be realized by a Hong Kong liquidator; accordingly a winding-up order was made.
15 Jan 2009

CHAN HUNG v. YUNG KWONG CHUNG

Citation

CHAN HUNG v. YUNG KWONG CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA216/2004

Court allowed one specific interrogatory concerning the reason for the HK$3,300,000 transfer and ordered limited specific discovery for documents tied to allegations in paragraphs 18 and 24 of Chan Hung's supplemental witness statement, but refused extensive discovery (including the 2nd Summons) and disallowed other interrogatories as fishing or unnecessary under O.24 r.8; previous request for interrogatories without order was withdrawn; costs ordered nisi.
21 Jul 2008

EMIGRA INC AND ANOTHER v. STEPHEN DARYL BARNES

Citation

EMIGRA INC AND ANOTHER v. STEPHEN DARYL BARNES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2806/2006

Master found on evidence that Barnes is ordinarily resident in Australia for settled purposes; Emigra Asia is a nominal defendant in the counterclaim with likely reasonable costs limited to HK$20,000; accordingly security of HK$20,000 was ordered to be paid into court within 14 days or the counterclaim as to Emigra Asia would be stayed; costs of the application awarded half to applicant as order nisi due to initial procedural drafting irregularity.