LEGENDARY TECH PTE. LTD v. AIRWALLEX (HONG KONG) LTD

HCMP 131/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 131 OF 2026

_______________________

______________________

______________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________________

1.  On 26 March 2026, I granted a pre-action discovery/Norwich Pharmacal Order to Legendary Tech Pte Limited (the “Plaintiff”) against Airwallex (Hong Kong) Ltd (the “Defendant”). My reasons appear below.

Factual and procedural background

2.  Unknown fraudsters obtained and later used a PIN-protected security device without the Plaintiff’s approval or knowledge which led to monies being transferred from the Plaintiff’s bank account with UOB (Malaysia) to other accounts.

3.  Transfers of USD 600,029 and USD 850,029.11 (the “Stolen Monies) were made on 1 October 2024 and 2 October 2024 respectively into an account held by Yinghua Services Limited (“Yinghua”) with account number 795013231 (“Yinghua Account”).

4.  The Plaintiff commenced HCA 247/2025 (“HCA 247”) against Yinghua as constructive trustee of the Stolen Monies on the basis that the same be returned to the Plaintiff as money had and received or alternatively as loss and damages suffered.

5.  Apart from seeking an order that Yinghua do pay the Stolen Monies to the Plaintiff; and further or alternatively, an order for payment by the Yinghua to the Plaintiff of the Stolen Monies as money had and received by Yinghua or unjust enrichment, (being prayers (2) and (3) in HCA 247, the prayers also include other relief[1].

6.  As Yinghua failed to give notice of intention to defend, the Plaintiff elected to abandon claims for other relief. Final judgment entered was on prayers (2) and (3).

7.  The Plaintiff initially thought that the Yinghua Account was an account with DBS but it transpired[2] that it was a virtual account (“VA”) which is not a bank account with DBS. The VA is linked to a bank account with DBS in the name of the Defendant who is a VA Service Provider.

8.  The Defendant maintains a master account at DBS with many sub-accounts which would be virtual accounts.

9.  On 7 November 2025, the Plaintiff obtained a garnishee order absolute against the Defendant based on the final judgment against Yinghua.

10.  On 24 November 2025, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff’s solicitors that the balance in the Yinghua Account was substantially less than the Stolen Monies. The Plaintiff then decided to commence the present proceedings with a view to tracing the monies into second-tier account holders receiving the Stolen Monies.

Discussion

11.  The requirements for a Norwich Pharmacal order are well established: see A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111 at §§10-13.

12.  In the present case, the Plaintiff had abandoned its proprietary claim. The question that arises is whether that makes any difference.

13.  Mr Owen Tsoi, counsel for the Plaintiff, referred to Leung Choi Fai v Wong Yee Fai & Ors [2025] HKCFI 3163 where D2 (a 1^st tier recipient) had transferred money to D6. D6 sought to resist P’s claim on the basis that as P had abandoned his proprietary claims against D2 and D6, there was no basis for him to rely on unjust enrichment to seek judgment against D6.

14.  DHCJ Andrew Li rejected the submission that D6’s enrichment could not have been at the expense of P once P abandons his proprietary claim against D2. He held (at §§145-146 and 151) that as long as there is a “sufficient causal connection, in the sense of a sufficient nexus or link” between the loss to the plaintiff and the benefit received by the defendant it will suffice, citing巨展皮具香港有限公司 v 上海兄弟海運有限公司 & Another [2018] HKCFI 53 at §§18 and 25(i) per DHCJ Keith Yeung SC (as he then was), and Heitkamp & Thumann KG v Living Profit Trading Develop Limited & Others [2018] HKCFI 1006 at §88.

15.  Having regard to those authorities, the fact that the Plaintiff can trace an interest in the Stolen Monies is a means of establishing a “sufficient causal connection” between the loss to the Plaintiff and the benefit received by the second-tier recipients.

16.  I am satisfied that the fact that the Plaintiff had abandoned his proprietary claim is no impediment to his raising a prima facie case of unjust enrichment against the second-tier recipients of the Stolen Monies and it is for those recipient(s) to demonstrate its/their defence.