Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Traceability

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2024

鑫都集團有限公司 v. U.K. PROLIFIC PETROLEUM GROUP COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP666/2024

The court granted interim‑interim injunctions restraining UKPPGC, Cypress and Wang from dealing with the specified UKPPGC shares, ListCo shares and convertible bonds because there are serious triable issues as to the Plaintiff's 20% proprietary entitlement under the 2015 Memorandum, a real risk of dissipation, the shares are not readily replaceable, the Plaintiff can give an undertaking in damages, and the court's s45 jurisdiction extends to third parties in appropriate cases albeit to be exercised cautiously.
28 Mar 2024

CHEUNG HIM SHING v. LUI HO CHEUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 502
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3939/2022

Summary judgment dismissed because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the defendant's enrichment was at the plaintiff's expense — the plaintiff could not trace the Subject Sum through the first‑tier accounts and the police letter was hearsay and inconclusive; triable issues remained on mistake and on the defendant's bona fide purchaser defence, so summary determination was inappropriate.
31 Oct 2022

LO SIU KIT v. TSANG LING SHING IGNATIUS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA103/2022

The court held that the plaintiff established a good arguable case on the merits for unjust enrichment, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance, but the interlocutory proprietary injunction could not be granted because the plaintiff failed to identify with sufficient particularity the Sum or its traceable proceeds in defendants' accounts so that the injunction could operate.
1 Sept 2009

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1520/2005

None of the defendants demonstrated an arguable proprietary interest in the $2.5 million: the 1st Defendants' claims were personal, the 3rd Defendant as shareholder had no proprietary claim in the funds, and the 2nd Defendant's asserted 50% interest was inadequately pleaded and undermined by a waiver; allegations of illegality or fraud were irrelevant to the interlocutory determination, so the Plaintiffs' application was allowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

鑫都集團有限公司 v. U.K. PROLIFIC PETROLEUM GROUP COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

CHEUNG HIM SHING v. LUI HO CHEUNG

LO SIU KIT v. TSANG LING SHING IGNATIUS AND ANOTHER

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU FOOK KEUNG AND OTHERS