EMINENT INVESTMENTS (ASIA PACIFIC) LIMITED V. DIO CORPORATION

[2020] HKCFA 38 Court of Final Appeal 3 December 2020 • FACV3/2020 • 42 min read
26 cases cited (0 SG, 26 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Practice Areas

Securities and Futures Ordinance

Judges (5)

Cheung Coram Fok Coram Lord Collins of Mapesbury Coram Ma Coram Ribeiro Coram

Counsel (6)

DLA Piper Hong Kong Firm Tang & So Firm Charles Sussex Counsel Defendant Jenkin Suen Counsel Plaintiff Richard Zimmern Counsel Defendant Wong Yan Lung Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Dio Corporation Defendant Eminent Investments (Asia Pacific) Limited Plaintiff

Summary

A financial adviser, Eminent Investments, claimed a success fee from DIO Corporation for a fundraising transaction entered into after the advisory agreement had expired. The key issue was whether an implied term entitled the adviser to a fee for transactions completed after termination of the retainer. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding no entitlement to the success fee.

Statutes Cited

Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap 571)

Cases Cited (26)

UK (20)
[1941] AC 108 [1971] 1 WLR 1381 [1998] 1 WLR 896 [2002] 1 AC 251 [2008] 1 WLR 909 [2008] EWCA Civ 26 [2008] EWCA Civ 419 [2009] EWHC 121 [2009] EWHC 713 [2009] UKSC 2 [2010] 1 All ER 571 [2010] EWHC 676 [2011] 1 WLR 2900 [2011] UKSC 50 [2014] EWHC 1282 [2014] EWHC 2165 [2015] AC 1619 [2015] UKSC 36 [2017] AC 1173 [2017] UKSC 24
HK (6)
(1999) 2 HKCFAR 279 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 95 (2012) 15 HKCFAR 120 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 351 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 632 [2019] HKCA 606

Cited By (1)

[2025] HKCA 1129
MG CHARTER LTD V. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO, LTD

Judgment

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

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2020] HKCFA 38)