Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Shareholder dispute

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2026

RE WONG YEE CHUK

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB9063/2025

The debtor did not make a valid, unconditional offer to secure the debt under s.6D(3) because the purported proposals were conditional, inconsistent and not capable of acceptance; even if treated as an offer the proposed security was uncertain and likely insufficient given competing liabilities and the procedural and cross‑border impediments to distribution; the petitioner’s refusal was not unreasonable; accordingly a bankruptcy order was properly made for failure to comply with the statutory demand.
7 Jan 2025

NT PHARMA PACIFIC COMPANY LTD v. NT PHARMA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 229
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2711/2024

Interim injunction refused because the applicant did not provide a full and frank picture to the court, there was inordinate delay negating urgency, there was no evidence that the non‑resident 2nd and 3rd defendants have assets in Hong Kong or a risk of dissipation, and the evidence suggested the matter may be a shareholder dispute; defendants must be allowed to file evidence and the matter adjourned for full argument.
31 Jan 2023

CHAN BENJAMIN KI-WOOD v. YOUNG WON KEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1094/2021

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the PRC judgments and the HCMP decision establish that the challenged corporate acts were valid under PRC law and therefore the unlawfulness element of the conspiracy claim cannot be made out; permitting relitigation would be barred by issue estoppel and amount to abuse of process, leaving nothing for the Hong Kong court to decide.
1 Nov 2022

LO FONG HUNG v. FUNG YUEN KWAN, VERONICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2219/2020

The court granted the adjournment of the interim injunction and ordered a preliminary trial on the central issue of whether an oral cooperation agreement existed, and stayed further proceedings (including the injunction summons) because the primary issue is dispositive, the injunction terms were overtaken by subsequent director appointments, the evidence on those appointments was deficient and there was an unacceptable multiplicity of proceedings amounting to abuse of court resources.
27 Sept 2022

LO SIU TIM AND ANOTHER v. FITNESS TOGETHER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP766/2021

The plaintiffs were effectively successful: the Nominees were contractually and fiduciarily bound by the Nominee Deed to transfer or vote in accordance with beneficial owners' instructions, franchisor approval and stamp duty concerns did not justify imposing those preconditions, and the Nominees only relented after franchisor intervention. On that basis the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs but declined to award indemnity costs given the overall conduct of the parties.
9 Aug 2021

LEE CHI HANG AND OTHERS v. WELL DONE GARMENT FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA465/2013

The summons to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed: the court held Ds succeeded on all issues except Diversion which occupied minimal time, therefore the 95% costs order in favour of Ds (subject to a 5% discount) is fair; the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute and the summons costs of HK$20,000 are ordered payable by Ps.
1 Apr 2021

WONG SZE LING AND ANOTHER v. YOUNG CHEUNG LEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW388/2019

The 2nd Strike out Summons was an abuse of process because respondents sought to re-argue and relitigate the same grounds they had previously advanced and withdrawn without any material change of circumstances; the petitioners' delay in obtaining a Rule 29 registrar certificate was satisfactorily explained (COVID GAP and solicitor changes) and was not inordinate or prejudicial given the company is solvent and respondents were aware and participating; accordingly the summons was dismissed and costs awarded to petitioners on an indemnity basis.
5 Oct 2020

趙春雨 AND ANTOHER v. 裘麗虹 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2787
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3071/2016

The court accepted the plaintiff's oral evidence and the uncontradicted expert handwriting report finding the contested documents to bear forged signatures; the defendants failed to rebut that evidence; accordingly the alleged resolutions, transfers and appointments were declared forged, void and of no legal effect, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs with the defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
10 Jun 2019

TAM TAK YAM v. MAN SHING TEXTILES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1449
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2641/2017

On the balance of probabilities the court found Tang inserted the requisition and EGM notices into the company's registered office letter-box and that the Applicant and the company secretary did receive them; receipt via the registered office constituted valid notice in the circumstances; the Applicant had an adequate opportunity to make representations and failed to do so; accordingly the application seeking relief was dismissed and the removal proceeded as valid.
21 Mar 2019

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

The court framed the central question as whether the asserted legitimate expectation of equal profit sharing and participation by equal shareholders engaged section 724 and could justify a buy‑out remedy; the excerpt does not disclose the final dispositive ruling.