KOO MING KOWN V. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS

[2024] HKCFI 2869 Court of First Instance 16 October 2024 • HCA1481/2014 • 131 min read
44 cases cited (0 HK, 44 foreign) Cited by 9 cases

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (12)

Parties (6)

Case Significance

Koo Ming Kown v. The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong and Others [2024] HKCFI 2869 is a Court of First Instance decision dated 16 October 2024, classified under theft, fraud and dishonesty and intellectual property. No outcome is recorded for this stage of the proceedings. The decision cites Moorthy Selvaraj (as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, deceased) v. Karupayee Ammal (as the administratrix and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of Karupayaselvaraj, deceased) and Others [2024] HKCFI 403. The dispute between Koo Ming Kown and the Baptist Convention of Hong Kong continued through further stages, including a later Court of First Instance decision under the same name, [2025] HKCFI 4680, and Court of Appeal proceedings at [2026] HKCA 1098 and [2026] HKCA 372, as well as a related matter, Koo Ming Kown v. Rev. Mr. Mok Kong Ting and Others [2026] HKCFI 802.

What subject areas does Koo Ming Kown v. The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong involve ([2024] HKCFI 2869)?

Koo Ming Kown v. The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong and Others [2024] HKCFI 2869 is classified under theft, fraud and dishonesty and intellectual property, decided by the Court of First Instance on 16 October 2024, with no outcome recorded at this stage.

Did the Baptist Convention dispute continue beyond the 2024 decision ([2024] HKCFI 2869)?

Yes. The dispute continued into further Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal proceedings under the same case name, including [2025] HKCFI 4680, [2026] HKCA 1098, and [2026] HKCA 372, plus a related matter, Koo Ming Kown v. Rev. Mr. Mok Kong Ting and Others [2026] HKCFI 802.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (44)

UK (21)
[1891] 3 Ch 82 [1893] 1 Ch 618 [1972] AC 877 [1977] AC 890 [1982] QB 84 [1985] 1 WLR 948 [1996] AC 563 [1998] AC 786 [1998] Ch 1 [2003] 2 AC 1 [2003] EWCA Civ 1794 [2004] 1 AC 919 [2006] EWHC 2887 [2010] EWHC 1392 [2013] EWCA Civ 910 [2013] UKSC 34 [2014] EWHC 3615 [2017] AC 142 [2019] EWHC 366 [2021] QB 1027 [2024] AC 168
HK (23)
(2003) 6 HKCFAR 336 (2004) 7 HKCFAR 79 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387 (2007) 10 HKCFAR 31 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 681 [1997] HKLRD 1238 [2000] 1 HKLRD 14 [2006] 4 HKC 406 [2009] 4 HKLRD 29 [2009] 5 HKLRD 513 [2010] 4 HKLRD 219 [2012] 5 HKLRD 421 [2015] 5 HKC 22 [2018] HKCFI 2286 [2020] HKCFI 252 [2021] HKCFI 2242 [2022] HKCA 472 [2022] HKCFI 1591 [2022] HKCFI 3326 [2022] HKCFI 543 [2023] HKCA 1278 [2023] HKCA 185 [2024] HKCFI 403

Cited By (9)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 9 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2024] HKCFI 2869)