Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Tracing claim

  • 8 Aug 2023

    JUS DE FRUITS DE MOOREA S.A. v. HONGKONG YIDA COMMERCE CO LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1283
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ45/2020

    The court granted the bankers' books and third party discovery order because the Norwich Pharmacal criteria were satisfied: there was cogent evidence of fraud and Bo Shengda's role as conduit (including default judgment), the disclosure sought was specific and likely to lead to tracing of assets, other avenues had been exhausted, and the defendant and bank did not oppose disclosure; privacy concerns were outweighed. The plaintiff must give the undertaking in the draft order. Costs were ordered to the respondent on an indemnity basis and reasonable costs for compliance to be summarily assessed.

  • 3 Mar 2023

    LAO KI CHIT v. CITIBANK (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 335
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP4187/2022

    The court granted the Norwich Pharmacal order because the plaintiff proved cogent and compelling evidence of a serious telephone fraud producing a substantial loss (HK$2,436,000), the requested disclosure (latest bank statement and transaction records from 16 April 2020 to freeze date) would very likely yield substantial and worthwhile benefits by enabling preservation/tracing of HK$400,000, the documents sought were specific and necessary rather than unduly wide, other avenues had been exhausted, and there were no triable issues, permitting summary disposal.

  • 11 Aug 2022

    A v. B

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 833
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP1953/2022

    The court found the plaintiff had produced cogent and compelling evidence of serious wrongful activity and that narrowly tailored disclosure (name, company number if applicable, address of the account holder) would very likely yield substantial benefit by identifying the correct defendant for proceedings; balancing the competing interests, and given the defendant’s neutral stance and lack of evidence of instructions from the account holder, the court exercised its discretion to grant a revised Norwich Pharmacal order and a time‑limited gagging order (60 days) despite the plaintiff not having…

  • 26 May 2022

    PRIOR SECURITIES LTD v. HANG SENG BANK LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1604
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP476/2022

    The court was satisfied that the applicant established cogent and compelling evidence of serious fraud, that disclosure of specified bank records was narrowly tailored and likely to assist tracing and preservation of assets, and that the implied undertaking should be relaxed; accordingly Norwich Pharmacal relief was granted in the terms sought, with specified timing and indemnity costs and permission to amend the originating summons to include the additional disclosed account.

  • 2 Dec 2021

    SIU WAI MING v. SHIU WAI HONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1802
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV84/2020

    The court declined to order security because the Defendants failed to produce sufficient evidence of the Plaintiff's impecuniosity or of a real risk of inability to satisfy a costs order; the Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient net equity in the Aegean Coast Property to cover the Defendants' reasonable appeal costs; the Defendants' estimated costs were excessive (unjustified fees and number of counsel); and neither the delay nor the merits of the appeal was decisive. Accordingly the discretion was not exercised in favour of security.