Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

American cyanamid test

Legal area

Court

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

HCA551/2024

Because Hui completely failed to comply with the disclosure order ancillary to a Mareva injunction thereby preventing effective policing and creating a real risk to the preservation of assets, and applying the American Cyanamid interlocutory principles, it was just and convenient to appoint interim receivers (the Group's joint liquidators) to identify, secure and preserve Hui's assets and to investigate associated companies, with limits to their powers (para 5.7 deleted) and appointment of a supervising solicitor.
14 May 2024

WAN KWOK LING BONNIE 對 WAN KWOK KUEN JOHNSON

Citation

[2024] HKDC 717
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5408/2023

The court found the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried, that the defendant's campaign caused non‑monetary harm for which damages would be inadequate, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting a non‑final injunction (with a narrow medical exception) because any loss to the defendant from temporary restraint could be compensated by damages; accordingly an interim non‑final injunction was granted until trial or further order.
13 Jan 2023

HAN JAEJOON v. LEE SANG YOUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1484/2022

There is a serious issue to be tried over the ownership of 65% of JL Global Co Limited; on the balance of convenience (applying American Cyanamid) the shares should be preserved by continuing the injunction, but given parallel Korean injunctive orders and comity concerns the operative parts of the injunction must be confined to conduct in Hong Kong; paragraphs 3(4)–3(6) are removed and the plaintiff must provide fortification of HK$1,000,000 into court within 21 days.
1 Aug 2022

SHIH RICK JU-FENG AND OTHERS v. LO YUEH-LI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1356/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiffs failed to establish the inadequacy of damages — a critical and cumulative requirement for interlocutory damages relief — and the remaining grounds merely repeated matters already considered; the judge was not plainly wrong in his discretionary assessment.
27 May 2021

張超翰對韓欣陶

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 38
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1588/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the interim injunction expired upon the final determination (rendering the appeal academic), the applicant's delay of 22 days was serious and unexplained, the respondent had no arguable defence on the merits (no real prospect of success), and bankruptcy/vesting issues further rendered the challenge sterile; accordingly there was no proper basis to extend time or grant leave.
16 Mar 2021

CHEN HONGQING v. ASIA CEMENT CORPORATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP962/2017

The court dismissed HCMP 962/2017 and released the parties from the undertakings because the arbitration was finally determined and the Undertakings were expressly pending determination of the arbitration; the joinder and injunction applications were refused because Chen Hongqing's pleaded cases were contradictory, inherently incredible and therefore bound to fail such that there was no serious issue to be tried; security for costs was ordered to reflect a broad-brush estimate of defendable party-and-party costs (HK$1,650,000 + RMB200,000).
26 Apr 2019

CHINA RESOURCES LAND LTD AND ANOTHER v. UNKNOWN PERSONS SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE OF THE CHINA RESOURCES BUILDING ON THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OF THE HARBOUR DRIVE, WANCHAI, HONG KONG, DISPLAYING LARGE POSTERS OF DEFAMATORY NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA504/2019

Because the plaintiffs could not identify the defendants other than by reference to the location of the conduct, naming by locality was valid; service by the methods employed was the only practical method and was therefore deemed good and sufficient; the impugned statements raised a serious question to be tried; no defendant appeared to advance any recognized defence; and on balance of convenience the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the specified publications until determination of the action or further order, with service and prior documents deemed effective.
27 Jun 2018

TSANG KWONG CHIU KEVIN v. TANG WING HANG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA619/2018

Where defamatory statements are clearly defamatory and no substantive defence is raised, a plaintiff seeking interlocutory injunctive relief need only show a serious issue to be tried as to the defendant's responsibility for publication; on the facts the plaintiff established such a serious issue, evidence of intent to republish and balance of convenience favoured an injunction, therefore the interlocutory injunction was granted.
4 Sept 2017

DRAGON SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LTD v. AESO HOLDING LTD

Citation

DRAGON SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LTD v. AESO HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1647/2017

The court held that on the evidence the plaintiff had a strong prima facie right to repayment of the loan and the charged security was in jeopardy due to the shareholders' conflict and apparent cash insolvency; the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the charged share by appointment of interim receivers subject to conditions (payment into court by deadline, security for receivers' fees and undertaking as to damages) and limitation of receivers' authority to receiving the share and associated rights only.
2 Apr 2014

DEVERE GROUP HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER v. NICHOLAS EDWARD JOHN SMITH

Citation

DEVERE GROUP HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER v. NICHOLAS EDWARD JOHN SMITH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1950/2013

Plaintiffs failed the 'serious issue to be tried' limb because their case rested on speculation and suspicion without direct or adequate circumstantial evidence and multiple alternative sources existed; accordingly interlocutory relief was unjustified and the application was dismissed.