Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlawful dividends

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2026

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 15
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP90/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the Court of Appeal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge exercised his discretion within permissible bounds, properly found a good arguable case based on admissible liquidators' findings, correctly excluded reliance on the CSRC decision, validly concluded urgency justified an ex parte Mareva injunction and that any non-disclosure was insubstantial or would not have led to discharge; accordingly continuation of the injunction was properly ordered.
12 Feb 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

The court held that the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction should be continued: CEG established a good arguable case of serious misstatements in the consolidated financial statements and of breaches of directors' duties by Xia, there was insufficient assets within Hong Kong to satisfy potential judgment, and a real risk of dissipation existed; alleged procedural defects (lack of prior notice and asserted non-disclosure) were either justified by urgency or not materially prejudicial and did not warrant discharge; the CSRC Decision could not be relied on for its findings but the Liquidators'…
12 Feb 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

The court held that the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction should be continued because CEG established a good arguable case of serious misstatements in the consolidated financial statements and of breaches of directors' duties by Xia, there were insufficient assets in Hong Kong to satisfy any judgment, and there was a real risk of dissipation; alleged failures of prior notice or non-disclosure were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant discharge and the CSRC Decision could not be relied on for the truth of its findings though Liquidators' investigatory evidence was admissible; consequentl…
25 Feb 2021

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 378
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

On the evidence (forensic funds tracing, shipping expertise, contemporaneous documents and witness testimony) the court found that a sustained scheme of fictitious transactions and round-robin fund flows was orchestrated and controlled by Chun and Lai; both knowingly participated and breached fiduciary duties; the Dividends (HK$672.9m) were unlawfully paid or flowed from breaches and must be disgorged; the June/July 2013 transfers (HK$1.96088798444bn) were unauthorized misapplications of Central Steel’s assets; Cheung Fat and Wellrun are liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt/con…
23 Jul 2019

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as MOULIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1715
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA167/2008

The court found that the Moulin Group's financial statements were falsified, that Holdings was insolvent during the Relevant Period on adjusted accounts, and that the Defendant, by virtue of her role and knowledge of multiple red flags, breached her duty of care and skill by failing to investigate; accordingly she was liable to account for unlawful dividends and share repurchases (strict liability for unlawful dividends subject to statutory defence which was not advanced), limitation did not bar the claim under s31, and no further set‑off beyond the agreed auditor settlement was allowed.
23 Jan 2018

YEUNG TAK WAI v. G & G TRADING LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW8/2016

The respondent failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds: the claims were prima facie time‑barred unless acknowledged; the 2014 audited financial statements signed by the director constituted an acknowledgement within the limitation period; challenges to lawfulness or precise quantum without specifying corrected figures did not constitute substantial grounds; beneficial ownership disputes are irrelevant to a member’s claim to declared dividends; therefore the petition should succeed and a winding‑up order be made unless the company pays the sums claimed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as MOULIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

YEUNG TAK WAI v. G & G TRADING LTD