Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administrators pendente lite

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2025

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 810
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The summons was dismissed because the Master had not been shown to have lost jurisdiction (ss40 and 60 PAO not yet determined), the plaintiff had already commenced taxation proceedings to quantify APL costs and the new summons constituted an abuse of process by seeking the same relief and by attempting to vacate a part‑heard hearing; Practice Direction 5.7 did not mandate transfer of this interlocutory matter; exceptional conduct justified an indemnity costs award to defendants of $110,111 payable by 21 March 2025.
28 Sept 2023

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1117
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP202/2021

The summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the costs order nisi made absolute because the appeal failed on its grounds, the Undertaking adequately addressed any risk of dissipation obviating the need for administrators pendente lite, and the plaintiff's late reliance on the PIP undermined her claim to different costs treatment.
9 Jun 2023

WONG LUI v. A, XIABUZHA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2021

Orders 45(c) and 46 construed together require that, save for the costs of the 16 March 2023 hearing to be borne by the Plaintiff, the balance of the costs of the application are to be dealt with under 45(c) (i.e. paid out of the Estate in the first instance with party liability reserved); on summary assessment the judge attributed 30% of specified items to the 16 March hearing, assessed items B1/B2 at HK$2,865, Item C at HK$55,000, Items D1–D3 at HK$30,000, counsel fee at HK$120,000, included an item of HK$17,400 and rounded the total assessed cost for the 16 March hearing to HK$163,800, and…
1 Feb 2021

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2017

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal because the defendants' prolonged inactivity after obtaining leave to appeal constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay and an abuse of process (warehousing), their derivative action explanation did not justify delay beyond mid‑2018, and the delay caused prejudice to the plaintiff and the administration of justice; accordingly the appeal was struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
10 Dec 2007

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2007

The court granted the appointment of administrators pendente lite because: there was an immediate need to preserve and secure large and varied estate assets; numerous companies and uncertain trust relationships required interim representation; the estate needed representation to settle related administration fees; the litigation was likely to be protracted; and appointment would prevent controversial or unilateral management decisions, with costs acknowledged but not decisive, and the parties having agreed on choice and terms of appointment.
3 Jun 2003

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. NINA KUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. NINA KUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2003

The Court of Appeal held the correspondence did not amount to a concluded agreement and the Muttrie order was provisional and contained no express bar preventing the administrators from litigating beneficial ownership; accordingly the stay below was wrongly imposed and was set aside.
4 Sept 2001

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1643/2001

The court held it had inherent jurisdiction to order discovery to enable administrators to identify and preserve estate assets and that the judge's order requiring the defendant to answer specified questions and produce documents was within that jurisdiction and a proper exercise of discretion; procedural objections and complaints of oppression or short timetable did not justify interference, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
22 Aug 2001

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1948/2001

The Court of Appeal held that interim protection was appropriate but could be secured by undertakings from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents (and a cross-undertaking from the petitioners) rather than by vacating other court dates; accordingly the appeal was disposed of by making no order in light of the agreed undertakings and an expedited hearing of the interim relief application was directed, with costs in the cause.
14 Apr 1994

ADRIENNE MARSH LEFKOWITZ v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Citation

ADRIENNE MARSH LEFKOWITZ v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/1993

Majority: Payments by administrators pendente lite to discharge debts, duties and taxes connected with the estate constitute acts of administration and are not 'distribution of the residue' prohibited by s.40(2); consequently the trial judge's order authorising the US$4.7M payment as reimbursement was within permissible powers and his discretion should not be displaced. Minority held the order was a prohibited transfer prior to completion of the local administration.