Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wilful default

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2024

CHOW TIMOTHY WAI KOON v. LAM YING KUEN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1835
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1669/2023

Master found Defendant breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated entrusted funds and shares; Plaintiff proved the account movements and the balance of HK$317,533.78 and established loss from Defendant's wilful failure to act on instructions amounting to HK$103,068.80 (496,000 shares x HK$0.2078). Judgment entered for Plaintiff for HK$420,602.58 with interest (HSBC best lending rate +1% from 26 April 2023 to date of Interlocutory Judgment, thereafter at judgment rate) and costs summarily assessed at HK$55,000.
3 Nov 2022

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HOTUNG, MICHAEL ERIC A.B. MAK SHUN MING, the Executor of the Estate of HO YUEN KI WINNIE, also known as HO YUEN KI, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1658
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2021

Leave to appeal refused because the appellant failed to establish the foundational factual premise that the trustee was under a duty to investigate or that she failed so to act; the appellant also failed to prove any causal loss flowing from the established breach (Failure to Inform) so as to shift the onus to the trustee; established Court of Final Appeal authority already states the claimant must show causal connection before equitable compensation and an account on wilful default requires proof of wilful neglect or default, therefore no substantial question of law of general or public impo…
29 Jun 2022

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HOTUNG, MICHAEL ERIC A.B. MAK SHUN MING, the Executor of the Estate of HO YUEN KI WINNIE, also known as HO YUEN KI, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2021

Appeal dismissed because the appellant was bound by the specific breaches pleaded in the re-amended statement of claim; the broader 'safeguarding duty' breaches relied on at appeal were unpleaded and could not be introduced by reference to trial evidence; the only breach proved was failure to inform the beneficiary on reaching majority but no causal link or loss was established, justifying only nominal damages of $1; costs awarded against the appellant.
20 Mar 2020

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2089/2009

The Court held the Court of Appeal order required a common form account limited to income actually received and expenses incurred; plaintiffs had not pleaded or proven wilful default or any agreement entitling them to occupation rent; the defendant's inadequate records justified limited adverse inferences but not wholesale substitution of market rent; the court computed net income on the evidence and presumptions and awarded plaintiffs one quarter of the net income plus post-judgment interest and costs.
13 Dec 2017

KWAN MAN SHING AND ANOTHER v. 張偉雄 AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWAN MAN SHING AND ANOTHER v. 張偉雄 AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1708/2015

The court exercised its discretion to affirm the Master's order joining the applicant because the applicant's failure to intervene earlier was not wilful default on the facts and he demonstrated a defence with a real prospect of success based on adverse possession given unresolved issues (including timing and effect of the survey) that require trial, therefore the joinder was justified and the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed.
11 Mar 2014

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL

Citation

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/2012

Although severe adverse findings were made against the defendant and equitable compensation was awarded on a wilful default basis, indemnity costs were not justified because the misconduct warranting disapproval was addressed by the substantive equitable remedy and because the conduct of the litigation did not amount to the kind of special or unusual feature that warrants indemnity costs; both parties contributed to the length and complexity of the proceedings, so costs are to be taxed on a party and party basis.
10 Jul 2013

LI SHIU TO v. CHEUNG PIK NG AND OTHERS

Citation

LI SHIU TO v. CHEUNG PIK NG AND OTHERS<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA416/2003

Leave was granted because the statutory and procedural requirements for a contribution claim and joinder were met, the need for joinder arose from the amended (purple) pleadings, D1's delay was satisfactorily explained in context of the long dormancy of the action and prior procedural events, and the convenience and justice of trying all issues together outweighed the limited prejudice or delay to the plaintiff.
25 May 2006

MA CHUNG LAM AND OTHERS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

MA CHUNG LAM AND OTHERS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV248/2005

The applicants failed to prove the manager breached duties under the DMC or acted with wilful default; there was no established duty to carry out regular inspections of the closed AC drain system nor was there an emergency or likely magistrate authorisation to justify forcible entry under s40 BMO; appeal dismissed.
19 May 2004

CHAN CHIU LAM AND OTHERS v. YAU YEE PING

Citation

CHAN CHIU LAM AND OTHERS v. YAU YEE PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2003

Appeal allowed: plaintiffs failed to prove actual loss of estate assets causally linked to wilful default by the defendant; expenditures and distributions were legitimate and the defendant reasonably believed she was entitled, therefore account must be taken in the common form not on the footing of wilful default.
22 Nov 2001

ANNABELL KIN YEE LEE AND OTHERS v. LEE WING KIM (MAY LEE)

Citation

ANNABELL KIN YEE LEE AND OTHERS v. LEE WING KIM (MAY LEE)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9522/1997

The proposed expert report was excluded because it did not identify any recognised body of expertise or established professional standards, addressed matters that are within the court's own knowledge, and amounted to advocacy and legal submissions rather than independent expert opinion; therefore the report was not admissible or helpful and leave to adduce it was refused.