Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ancillary orders

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2024

FOREVER CONCORD LTD v. LAU KWONG & HUNG (A Firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP620/2024

The Amended Summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that the Requested Documents were in the 2nd defendant's possession, custody or power; the 2nd defendant's affirmation denying possession was supported by solicitors' correspondence and the circumstances and was therefore conclusive; accordingly the ancillary disclosure application also failed and further late attempt to amend the Amended Summons was refused.
31 May 2019

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3819/2011

Trustees proved non-compliance with the Production Order for specific items and respondents failed to justify non-compliance; the court has power (under s29 and its inherent jurisdiction) to make ancillary orders including requiring affirmations and further production; respondents were ordered to comply with §§1 and 2 of the Production Order within 28 days and costs were ordered nisi against respondents apportioned 85% to Mr Tang/Ms Hou and 15% to Mrs Wong.
15 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID

Citation

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC218/2015

The forfeiture order had not been perfected because the court’s confiscation form was not finally recorded (yellow copy filed) at the time counsel returned to seek re-opening; therefore the trial judge was not functus officio and erred in refusing to re-open the matter — the forfeiture order is quashed and the matter remitted for fresh determination.
25 Aug 2014

TYG CAPITAL FUND v. HILDA HOR YEE CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

TYG CAPITAL FUND v. HILDA HOR YEE CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1585/2014

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success on the grounds advanced (that the Shareholders Restraint was supported or ancillary to existing injunctions, and that discharge was improper given alleged undertakings), and because the judge lawfully found material non-disclosure and properly exercised discretion; an interim stay of execution was granted until 4pm on 29 August 2014 to permit urgent application to the Court of Appeal.
25 Aug 1988

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWONG KIN-WING

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWONG KIN-WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA418/1988

The court held that under s98 Cap 227 magistrates do not have power to make a compensation order on its own; such an order must be made in addition to a sentence or other order. Consequently the magistrate erred in making a standalone compensation order and the appellate court quashed that order and substituted an absolute discharge under s36(1)(a) together with an ancillary compensation order under s98 for $2,000.

Hong Kong Case Law

FOREVER CONCORD LTD v. LAU KWONG & HUNG (A Firm) AND OTHERS

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID

TYG CAPITAL FUND v. HILDA HOR YEE CHAN AND OTHERS

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWONG KIN-WING