Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attachment

Legal area

Court

28 May 1984

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. MICHAEL J. JOHN AND ANOTHER

Citation

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. MICHAEL J. JOHN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14594/1983

Section 269 is a domestic code and does not protect New York attachments; questions of defeasibility and preference over assets situated in New York are governed exclusively by US law (lex situs). The joint liquidators, having obtained leave and acted on legal advice, did not commit misfeasance by pursuing s.303 proceedings; plaintiffs' applications are dismissed and the Hong Kong court will not override the dominant US forum on these issues.
12 Mar 1982

K. YU SEIN TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SURATWALA RUBIN TALAKCHAND

Citation

K. YU SEIN TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SURATWALA RUBIN TALAKCHAND
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/1981

The June 25, 1981 order was at most an irregularity under Order 2 Rule 1 and not a nullity; the Court could treat the order as a valid working-out of the pre-judgment attachment to permit execution or seizure of the defendant's goods; ex parte procedure for such execution orders was proper; the Defendant was not an accomplice in respect of the appellants' failure to deliver up the goods and his evidence could be relied upon; the judge applied the appropriate high standard of proof and the appeal was dismissed.
17 Nov 1976

MARIA LUISA XAVIER v. JERRY FRANCIS XAVIER

Citation

MARIA LUISA XAVIER v. JERRY FRANCIS XAVIER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1976

The Court of Appeal held the District Court had jurisdiction to enforce the maintenance order and to commit for contempt: section 10A(2) and related provisions bring the District Court within the definition of "court" for matrimonial causes, Rules 87 and 88 apply, and section 48(1) gives the District Court power to grant remedies enforceable by attachment analogous to s.74 County Courts Act; Jennison v Baker and Martin v Bannister establish that attachment/commitment is part of the remedy, therefore the District Judge's dismissal for want of jurisdiction was wrong.
2 Nov 1971

SHISHIR KOTHARI t/a KO JEWELS TRADING CO v. GILMAN & CO LTD

Citation

SHISHIR KOTHARI t/a KO JEWELS TRADING CO v. GILMAN & CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP249/1971

Application for stay of execution was dismissed because the applicant failed to file affidavit evidence and did not demonstrate a real risk that the judgment would be rendered nugatory by removal of the person or assets; mere allegations of short residence and past dishonoured cheques were insufficient to justify a stay.
5 Mar 1969

CHANDRU HEERA SAKHRANI t/a SAKHRANI TRADING CO v. YAU TACK SHING (A FIRM)

Citation

CHANDRU HEERA SAKHRANI t/a SAKHRANI TRADING CO v. YAU TACK SHING (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1292/1968

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction under O.49 r.9(1) to order payment out of money standing to the credit of the judgment debtor in the District Court; the proper application is to a judge of the District Court where the money is credited, therefore the Supreme Court must dismiss the application.

Hong Kong Case Law

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. MICHAEL J. JOHN AND ANOTHER

K. YU SEIN TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SURATWALA RUBIN TALAKCHAND

MARIA LUISA XAVIER v. JERRY FRANCIS XAVIER

SHISHIR KOTHARI t/a KO JEWELS TRADING CO v. GILMAN & CO LTD

CHANDRU HEERA SAKHRANI t/a SAKHRANI TRADING CO v. YAU TACK SHING (A FIRM)