-
Oct 24, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Jojo Fan |Rachael Shek |Sara Troughton
Following our recent blogpost, the Hong Kong Court has considered another case under the previous statutory regime of Mainland-Hong Kong reciprocal enforcement of judgments, under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (the "2008 MJREO").
-
Oct 2, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Jojo Fan |Gareth Thomas |Rachael Shek |Sara Troughton
The English High Court has recently in Webb v Eversholt Rail Limited [2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch) dismissed an application by liquidators to obtain documents and information from a company, on the basis that the request was unreasonably broad and unsubstantiated by evidence as to why the documents were reasonably required (please see this post on our Litigation Notes blog).
-
Sep 23, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Jojo Fan |Gareth Thomas |Rachael Shek |Jody Luk |Sara Troughton
Under section 733 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) ("Ordinance"), a member of a company may bring proceedings if misconduct has been committed against the company (also known as a statutory derivative action ("SDA"), a statutory exception to the "proper plaintiff" rule).
-
Jul 29, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Jojo Fan |Rachael Shek |Veronica So |Timothy Shaw |Cheryl Mok
The recent Court of Final Appeal (the "CFA") case of China Life Trustees Limited v China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Overseas Company Limited [2024] HKCFA 15 provides an authoritative and thorough analysis of the principles governing whether a Quistclose trust arises in relation to intra-group transfer of funds, highlighting potential pitfalls faced by creditors.
-
May 21, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Trevor Ho |Siqi Huang
In Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co Ltd [2024] HKCA 299 (Simplicity; which we blogged about here), the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court of Final Appeal’s approach in Re Guy Kwok Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 (Guy Lam; see our blog post here) should apply in winding up cases involving an arbitration agreement.
-
May 20, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Grace Lee
In the wake of the recent turmoil in the Chinese real estate sector, which has seen several prominent Chinese real estate developers face financial distress, suspension of trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and even being wound-up by the Hong Kong Court, this article aims to provide an overview of the rights and positions of creditors and security holders under Hong Kong law in relation to an entity that has been wound-up (the Wound-up Entity) and its related company(ies) or person(s)...
-
May 17, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Hannah Cassidy |Simone Hui |Timothy Shaw
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has confirmed that, absent facts suggesting there is a real possibility that a transaction might be wrongful or improper, the presence of unusual or highly suspicious features in a customer’s instructions alone will not be sufficient to hold a financial institution liable for breach of its Quincecare duty of care.
-
Apr 29, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Gareth Thomas |Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Peter Ng |Timothy Shaw |Trevor Ho
After more than three years of litigation, the decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Tam Sze Leung & Ors v Commissioner of Police [2024] HKCFA 8 has brought certainty on how the police, banks and financial institutions should deal with (or not deal with) funds reported to be proceeds of crime under section 25A of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) (OSCO).
-
Apr 18, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Gareth Thomas |Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Peter Ng
In Bright Shipping Limited v Changhong Group (HK)
Limited [2024] HKCFI 821, the Hong Kong Court ordered a
defendant who had failed to satisfy a number of costs orders on the
ground of risk of secondary sanctions to pay such costs into
court.
Amid rising geopolitical tensions, we have seen sanctions
clauses being more frequently invoked by parties to seek to be
excused from performing their obligations.
-
Apr 18, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Rachael Shek |Jojo Fan |Peter Ng |Grace Lee
Without prejudice ("WP") privilege
protects a party's genuine attempt to settle a dispute by
preventing communications made in that connection from being
admitted as evidence in court. However, WP privilege may sometimes
be inadvertently waived and lost by parties. It is well established
that openly disclosing WP materials will result in loss of the
privilege, but the situation is less clear where a party merely
refers to WP materials without exhibiting them in open documents or
correspondence.
