Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anton piller orders

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2013

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD v. WEI XING AND OTHERS

Citation

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD v. WEI XING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2012

Neither side is awarded costs of the striking out application because the plaintiff (Wen and the Company) unreasonably delayed ratifying the proceedings after obtaining urgent relief and the defendants were unreasonable in delaying complaint and in persisting with the striking out application after ratification; in these circumstances the court refuses to order costs to any party in relation to the striking out application.
20 Feb 2009

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP840/2007

Material non-disclosure was established in relation to the overly broad definition of 'Group Companies' and the requirement to disclose cash takings of companies the 1st defendant did not control; given the significance of those omissions and the excessive scope of the order, the court exercised its discretion to discharge the Anton Piller order and dismissed the inspection summons, directing parties to proceed by ordinary discovery and leaving responsibility for disclosure to the defendants' solicitors.
21 Jan 2008

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC AND ANOTHER v. SUPREME FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC AND ANOTHER v. SUPREME FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV410/2007

The court approved a negotiated, restrained approach: limit pre-trial discovery to specific particulars necessary to determine liability; tailor Anton Piller orders to require only specific supplier/customer details and sample invoices/orders; stay certain prior obligations; dismiss the notice of appeal of the 1st and 3rd defendants; and order that interlocutory costs be costs in the cause, thereby resolving the stay application by specific directed undertakings rather than granting a broad stay.
8 Nov 2006

EVER JOINT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. NICE THEME LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EVER JOINT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. NICE THEME LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2153/2005

Once the company was wound up the derivative action could not properly continue in the plaintiff's name because control passed to the liquidator; striking out was unnecessary and potentially wasteful, so the appropriate course was to stay the proceedings pending appointment and decision of the liquidator, dismiss the plaintiff's interlocutory directions application and adjourn the amendment application sine die.
10 Jan 1996

THE TIN BOX CO OF AMERICA INC AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWOK SUM SAM AND OTHERS

Citation

THE TIN BOX CO OF AMERICA INC AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWOK SUM SAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10671/1995

The ex parte interlocutory injunctions were discharged because they were drafted too broadly and imprecisely and because material misstatements in the plaintiffs' affidavit (notably mischaracterisation of prior US proceedings) were sufficiently serious to vitiate the ex parte relief; the evidence did not establish a passing off claim in the descriptive term 'TIN BOX' nor justify continued Mareva/Anton Piller relief; defendants awarded costs on an indemnity basis and restrained use of seized material only for purposes of the action with further directions for inquiry into damages.
16 Nov 1990

JACQUES FAREL LTD v. HONG KONG DEVELOPMENT CO

Citation

JACQUES FAREL LTD v. HONG KONG DEVELOPMENT CO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/1990

Appeal allowed by consent and the interlocutory gag order was varied to permit communication with a specified third party because the proposed variation had not been presented to the judge below and the parties consented; costs awarded as set out in the Consent Summons.
5 Mar 1990

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. RIGHT SUCCESS LTD

Citation

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. RIGHT SUCCESS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1088/1990

The Anton Piller orders were unlawfully obtained and used by the plaintiff as part of a deliberate scheme of entrapment and to extract settlements; accordingly the injunctions and continuation summonses are discharged and dismissed, information and property obtained under those orders must be returned, and appropriate authorities (Inland Revenue) should be informed to investigate the proceeds.
5 Mar 1990

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. OLD HAND LTD

Citation

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. OLD HAND LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1084/1990

The court found the plaintiff had deliberately entrapped watch manufacturers by sending false buyer solicitations and then obtaining Anton Piller orders on deceptive grounds; this amounted to a gross abuse of the court's process, so the Anton Piller orders were unlawfully obtained, the injunctions were discharged and the continuation summonses dismissed, and material obtained under the orders should be returned with directions to investigate monies taken and tax liability.
5 Mar 1990

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. REMY ELECTRONICS LTD

Citation

PHILIP YUNG-TAK LAM v. REMY ELECTRONICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1086/1990

The Anton Piller orders were unlawfully obtained because the plaintiff deliberately created false premises (faxes and sham buyers) to induce manufacturers to produce samples and thus to procure ex parte search orders; this constituted a gross abuse of the court process and entrapment, warranting discharge of the injunctions, return of material and dismissal of the continuation summonses.
4 Apr 1989

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1404/1989

The court applied the established Ninemia test (good arguable case plus a real risk of dissipation that would render judgment nugatory) to both domestic and foreign assets; it rejected a separate, higher legal threshold or categorical requirement of reprehensible conduct for worldwide Mareva relief. On the facts the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence of disposable assets or an unfair/artificial risk of dissipation, and therefore the ex parte Mareva injunctions were discharged as to the surviving defendants.