Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unfair prejudice petitions

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2025

CHUNG SHUN YING AND ANOTHER v. WONG WAH ON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 688
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV300/2024

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the Judge did not err in principle or discretion: paragraph 173 was a valid restraint on the respondents' exercise of EC/ESC powers aimed at curing and preventing unfair prejudice given the proven serious mismanagement and breaches; the order was proportionate and within the Judge's s725 powers; the appellant's failure to apply to vary the order nisi was a procedural bar to raising those points on appeal; indemnity costs were refused but costs of the appeal were ordered to the Petitioners on a party and party basis.
11 Jun 2024

WONG YEE CHUK AND ANOTHER v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3365/2016

The Petitions under s.724 CO were dismissed because Wong/Cheng failed to prove the alleged unfairly prejudicial acts by Lo/Pan; the court found the companies had operated as a group and a quasi‑partnership existed but no consent requirement existed; Lo/Pan’s changes were bona fide responses to NHEL’s collapse precipitated by Wong’s misconduct (notably causing Yibao not to pay and refusal to assist with regulatory Combined Licence). Separately, the court found Wong breached fiduciary duties by transferring HIL trademarks to Harsen China, procuring registration of similar marks, competing throu…
23 May 2022

CHIU WING NIN MICHAEL AND ANOTHER v. CHIU SZE YUEN TONG LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP364/2022

On the facts the plaintiffs failed to show an objective proper purpose and good faith for the s.740 inspections; the applications were effectively fishing and challenged legitimate board decisions, therefore they must pay the defendants' costs.
23 May 2022

CHIU WING NIN MICHAEL AND OTHERS v. WING FUNG CHEUNG CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP363/2022

On the evidence and documents, the court concluded the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the requisite proper purpose for inspection under s.740, their applications amounted to impermissible fishing and challenge to board decisions, and accordingly the plaintiffs must pay the companies' costs.
7 Jun 2021

PAN SHI LIANG v. HARSEN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1682
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1917/2017

The court refused to make a further indemnity order because the applicant failed to produce evidence sufficient to show what loss the company suffered, what recovery could realistically be achieved, the costs already incurred and estimated future costs, the company's financial position, and the extent of overlap with pending unfair prejudice petitions; absent that material the court would not prudently order the company to fund further litigation and therefore adjourned the application with liberty to restore.
13 Nov 2017

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND ANOTHER

Citation

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1527/2013

Adjournment of the Majority Shareholders' summons was necessary because they failed to file any supporting evidence explaining the nature of the Valuer's appointment and the basis for adducing the Cullen report; without that evidence the court could not fairly assess leave to adduce further expert evidence despite a substantial asserted valuation discrepancy. The petitioner's application for a supplemental Valuer report was dismissed because the Valuer had already addressed development potential in the final report and the petitioner's disagreement with the Valuer's opinion did not establish…
15 Sept 2017

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1685/2009

Pre-trial valuation applications were dismissed as premature and not justified given respondents' objections and the likelihood the parties could undertake desktop valuations; amendment applications were refused because the alleged accounting liabilities were time-barred and, critically, the complainant had approved audited accounts which recorded the contested entries, so no basis was shown for unfair prejudice attributable to the respondents.
15 Sept 2017

YUNG YUI KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG YUI KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2551/2015

The court dismissed the pre-trial valuation applications as unnecessary and likely to incur disproportionate cost where disclosure deficiencies and commercial judgment weigh against an early valuation; the court refused amendments because the pleaded accounting complaints were time-barred or insufficiently demonstrate unfairness given audited accounts signed by the claimant and the directors' fiduciary duties to the company.
21 Feb 2017

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1527/2013

Majority Shareholders are jointly and severally liable to buy out the petitioner’s shares as ordered in the earlier judgment; valuation is to be conducted on a going concern basis with valuers able to assess development potential and relevant liabilities; costs of valuation and transfer (including stamp duty) are to be borne by the Majority Shareholders; managers' bonus does not continue after manager/shareholder status ceases; specified cash sums must be repaid or released with interest; no additional oral hearing or unspecified evidence is required before issuing final directions, and the p…
4 Jan 2017

JOSEPH GHOSSOUB v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JOSEPH GHOSSOUB v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3136/2016

Leave to appeal was granted limited to grounds challenging the judge's finding that an exclusive jurisdiction clause fetters the statutory right to bring an unfair prejudice petition and the related issue of effective remedy in England, because these raise important questions of principle with some prospect of success and engage public policy; a stay of the Hong Kong petition pending the appeal was granted because leave was given on those grounds and the appeal was expected to be short.