Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

American cyanamid principles

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

GOLDRISE INVESTMENT LTD v. MAK WAI KWAN ANTONIO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1589
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2025

Defendant has not shown an arguable defence; photographic evidence demonstrates continuous and obstructive occupation of the passageways and loading bay reducing access and creating hazards such that damages would not be an adequate remedy; applying American Cyanamid and Yeko Trading the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory relief and the court grants the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions sought (paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons) until trial or further order.
16 Sept 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

Because Hui had completely failed to comply with the Disclosure Order and thus prevented effective policing of the Mareva injunction, the court was satisfied there was a serious issue to be tried and a real risk that the injunction could not be enforced without receivership; applying the American Cyanamid framework the existing protective regime was ineffective and the balance of convenience favoured appointing receivers. The court therefore appointed the liquidators as joint and several receivers to identify, secure and preserve assets in terms of the draft order (with deletion of an unconst…
28 Mar 2024

POON KI CHI v. POON CHUK HUNG JASON

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA514/2024

The court granted an interlocutory injunction because the impugned statements were unarguably defamatory (serious allegations of theft), the defendant advanced no credible justification or defence on the papers, there was a real likelihood of repetition despite videos being made private, and on the balance of convenience the plaintiff's reputation required protection; accordingly paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons were ordered with the plaintiff's usual undertaking as to damages.
12 Jan 2023

HKCOLO.NET LTD v. HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1900/2021

The court dismissed both summonses and discharged the interim-interim injunctions because HKT's case was weak on the merits and did not meet the high threshold for continuation of a mandatory interlocutory injunction: the evidence showed a strong case that the MOU ramp-up schedules were incorporated into the parties' contractual relationship by conduct and estoppel, HKCOLO was entitled to accept repudiation and terminate, and HKT had committed material non-disclosure at the interim stage which warranted discharge; on balance of convenience it was not just or convenient to force continued perf…
10 Nov 2022

LEE CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI CHIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1880/2020

Although the court found there was a serious issue to be tried on the plaintiffs' trust claim, the applications for preservation order, proprietary injunction, interim preservation of company assets and ancillary discovery were dismissed because (a) plaintiffs delayed in adducing expert reports and those reports were refused; (b) damages were an adequate remedy given substantial net equity in the properties and no demonstrated inability of defendants to satisfy judgment; (c) many discovery requests failed Order 24 r.10 requirement of direct allusion to documents or were outside defendants' po…
27 Apr 2022

HO KWOK MING v. WONG HUNG HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 370
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5031/2021

The court was satisfied there is a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will establish at trial a right of way or a prescriptive easement over the Lot 965 Path, that irreparable harm (including risk to medical emergencies) would result if the injunction were refused and that the balance of convenience favours granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reopen the Lot 965 Path within 14 days; fortification was not justified and damages would be an adequate protection for defendant if wronged.
9 Aug 2021

CAI ZHENRONG v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1179
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV359/2021

The Court refused the interim injunction because the proposed appeal grounds were not reasonably arguable, the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured permitting delisting given SEHK's policy and the absence of evidential basis for prejudice; costs were ordered on an indemnity basis.
29 Oct 2019

GLOWJOY GROUP CO LTD v. WONG WAI CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA886/2019

The court held there is a serious question to be tried on the copyright infringement and related breach of confidence and unlawful means conspiracy claims; damages would be difficult to quantify and defendants did not demonstrate ability to pay or absence of imminent harm; on balance of convenience the plaintiff would suffer irreparable or hard‑to‑quantify harm if injunctive relief were withheld, therefore an interlocutory injunction restraining defendants from using, copying, selling or disclosing the S250 and SP800 drawings and specified technical documents was granted until trial or furthe…
19 Mar 2019

WONG HOI CHUN MILES v. KING PRIZE LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 370
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ42/2019

The court found there were serious questions to be tried on plaintiff's claim to a right of way by lost modern grant, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the plaintiff because loss of access caused potentially irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages while the defendant would suffer no substantial uncompensable prejudice; accordingly, on plaintiff's undertaking as to damages the court granted interim injunctions restraining obstruction and ordered dismantling of the gate and relocation of fences to provide a minimum 3‑foot width pending trial.
9 Dec 2016

XCELOM LTD AND ANOTHER v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

XCELOM LTD AND ANOTHER v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3089/2015

The judge found plaintiffs guilty of inordinate delay and that they had not established irreparable harm, meaning the interlocutory application was unjustified and wasted the defendants' and the court's resources; applying modern authorities and CJR objectives the court ordered immediate taxation and payment of defendants' costs (certificate for two counsel) and dismissed the plaintiffs' summons, holding the Order Nisi should stand as varied to effect immediate payment.