WELLY GRACE LTD AND OTHERS v. KEUNG YEE MAN AND OTHERS

WELLY GRACE LTD AND OTHERS v. KEUNG YEE MAN AND OTHERS

The application was allowed because the consent injunction did not embody a binding contractual bargain immune from variation (the 9th Defendant had not genuinely contested the injunction), the order was expressly subject to further court order, the proposed payment into court is benign and preserves plaintiffs'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 956
Parties
1st Plaintiff: welly grace limited (雋益有限公司); 2nd Plaintiff: charm honest international limited (曉誠國際有限公司); 3rd Plaintiff: well zone trading limited (佳域貿易有限公司); 4th Plaintiff: keen rich corporation limited (富銳有限公司); 5th Plaintiff: hong kong children’s gallery limited; 6th Plaintiff: kind focus limited; 7th Plaintiff: holdstar limited (星維有限公司); 8th Plaintiff: cheer merit limited (展德有限公司); 9th Plaintiff: daily rise corporation limited (晉日有限公司); 10th Plaintiff: lead fortune limited (吉領有限公司); 11th Plaintiff: st. lorraine english kindergarten limited (萊恩英文幼稚園有限公司); 1st Defendant: keung yee man (姜綺雯); 2nd Defendant: FUNG CHI WING (馮志榮); 3rd Defendant: YIP TSZ SHAN (葉紫珊); 4th Defendant: KEUNG HO SUM (姜晧心); 5th Defendant: TSANG KOON LEUNG (曾冠樑); 6th Defendant: WONG KA LAI (黃家麗); 7th Defendant: KEUNG YEE MEI (姜綺媚); 8th Defendant: SIU KWOK KIN, STANLEY (蕭國建); 9th Defendant: HUI YUN CHUN (許潤珍); 10th Defendant: FUNG MAN KEUNG (馮文強); 11th Defendant: LEE SAU FONG (李秀芳); 12nd Defendant: WONG WING CHUNG (黃永聰); 13rd Defendant: CHAN HENG FUNG; 14th Defendant: LAU YUK LING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2025
Case Number
HCA649/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Involving Proprietary Injunctions and Alleged Misappropriation / Interlocutory Application to Vary/discharge Interim Injunction by Payment Into Court
Outcome
Application allowed in part; court granted order permitting payment into court to discharge the injunction and made a costs award
Legal Topics
Payment Into Court, Consent Order Variation, Abuse of Process (henderson), Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Trusts and Proprietary Claims Costs Payment Into Court Consent Order Variation Abuse of Process (henderson) Interlocutory Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

welly grace limited (雋益有限公司)

1st Plaintiff

charm honest international limited (曉誠國際有限公司)

2nd Plaintiff

well zone trading limited (佳域貿易有限公司)

3rd Plaintiff

keen rich corporation limited (富銳有限公司)

4th Plaintiff

hong kong children’s gallery limited

5th Plaintiff

kind focus limited

6th Plaintiff

holdstar limited (星維有限公司)

7th Plaintiff

cheer merit limited (展德有限公司)

8th Plaintiff

daily rise corporation limited (晉日有限公司)

9th Plaintiff

lead fortune limited (吉領有限公司)

10th Plaintiff

st. lorraine english kindergarten limited (萊恩英文幼稚園有限公司)

11th Plaintiff

keung yee man (姜綺雯)

1st Defendant

FUNG CHI WING (馮志榮)

2nd Defendant

YIP TSZ SHAN (葉紫珊)

3rd Defendant

KEUNG HO SUM (姜晧心)

4th Defendant

TSANG KOON LEUNG (曾冠樑)

5th Defendant

WONG KA LAI (黃家麗)

6th Defendant

KEUNG YEE MEI (姜綺媚)

7th Defendant

SIU KWOK KIN, STANLEY (蕭國建)

8th Defendant

HUI YUN CHUN (許潤珍)

9th Defendant

FUNG MAN KEUNG (馮文強)

10th Defendant

LEE SAU FONG (李秀芳)

11th Defendant

WONG WING CHUNG (黃永聰)

12nd Defendant

CHAN HENG FUNG

13rd Defendant

LAU YUK LING

14th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Involving Proprietary Injunctions and Alleged Misappropriation / Interlocutory Application to Vary/discharge Interim Injunction by Payment Into Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may vary a consent interim injunction to permit payment into court
  2. 2 Whether the consent injunction constituted a contractual bargain immune from variation
  3. 3 Whether the application to vary is an abuse of process under Henderson principles

Ratio Decidendi

The application was allowed because the consent injunction did not embody a binding contractual bargain immune from variation (the 9th Defendant had not genuinely contested the injunction), the order was expressly subject to further court order, the proposed payment into court is benign and preserves plaintiffs' recourse so is not abusive, and there was no significant prejudice to plaintiffs; costs were ordered to plaintiffs to pay the 9th Defendant HK$60,000 (summary assessment).

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; court granted order permitting payment into court to discharge the injunction and made a costs award

Orders

  • Order permitting 9th Defendant (HUI YUN CHUN) to pay HK$78,000 into court in terms of [1-2] of her summons dated 30 August 2024 thereby discharging the injunction as to that sum
  • Plaintiffs to pay the 9th Defendant’s costs of this application, summarily assessed at HK$60,000