Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Automatic stay

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2024

SINOSTATE ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. KINGS PARADISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1664/2020

The stay was lifted because the prospective appeals were bound to fail: RHC Order 5, Rule 6 precludes the Plaintiffs from prosecuting without legal representatives (or registrar's permission), a statutory derivative action cannot be used to bypass that rule, and the appeal against refusal of security for costs had no real prospect of success; given imminent trial dates it was therefore unjustified to maintain the stay and the Court revised the Unless Order with a short extension and allocated costs accordingly.
23 Jun 2017

HON FOO CHOI v. HOMETEK INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

HON FOO CHOI v. HOMETEK INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3129/2014

The automatic 42-day stay was lifted because the plaintiff was legally represented at all times, provided no satisfactory explanation for applying for legal aid only shortly before trial, and the court found no exceptional circumstances to vary milestone trial dates under the District Court rules; therefore the trial should proceed as scheduled.
10 May 2016

FAIRWING INVESTMENT LTD v. WAN SAI CHUNG WAN SAI HANG

Citation

FAIRWING INVESTMENT LTD v. WAN SAI CHUNG WAN SAI HANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2460/2014

The automatic stay was lifted as the defendants' late legal aid application was an abuse of process; the defendants' pleaded defences (misrepresentation and undue influence) disclosed no reasonable defence and were struck out; the court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, ordered the Deeds shown as pending registration to be vacated from the Land Register and granted summary relief to the plaintiff.
29 Mar 2012

RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

Citation

RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/2011

The Court of Appeal upheld the bankruptcy order because the taxed costs constituted immediately payable debts that met the statutory threshold, the statutory demand was not complied with, and the lower court properly exercised its discretion after weighing the amounts, the merits of the bankrupt's outstanding claims and her litigation conduct; the automatic stay and trustees' control over continuation of proceedings did not render the bankruptcy order inappropriate.
31 Oct 2003

MUMTAZ HUSSAIN v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL & ANOTHER

Citation

MUMTAZ HUSSAIN v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL163/2002

The stay was lifted because the applicant's explanation for the belated legal aid application was not bona fide (mother's sickness did not justify the delay), there was no material suggesting the Director of Legal Aid would reverse prior refusals, and lifting the stay would not cause undue unfairness to the applicant.
1 Dec 1997

RE NG FOOK

Citation

RE NG FOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCA22/1996

The 1996 Order was set aside because a notified Legal Aid application had created an automatic stay rendering Master Jennings without jurisdiction to make the order; Rule 62 did not provide the sole remedy and the court's inherent jurisdiction and application of general procedural rules permitted the setting aside of the order; the appeal against Master Chu's dismissal was allowed and costs awarded to the Caveator.
24 May 1978

ALI HASSAN SULEIMAN v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

ALI HASSAN SULEIMAN v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ53/1978

The court held it had jurisdiction in rem: the company remained the beneficial owner of the ships for the purposes of the Act, the plaintiffs could not be preempted by an automatic recognition of the U.S. Chapter 11 stay as depriving Hong Kong jurisdiction, and the proper remedy was not to set aside the writs but to stay the actions only until plaintiffs rectified specified procedural defects; consequently no broad stay was granted on grounds of foreign bankruptcy or lack of jurisdiction.
24 May 1978

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE "PACIFIC BEAR" (USA FLAG) v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE "PACIFIC BEAR" (USA FLAG) v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ60/1978

Court held it had jurisdiction to entertain the in rem actions; the US Chapter 11 'debtor in possession' status did not, on the facts, deprive the company of beneficial ownership for purposes of the Act; plaintiffs may obtain only one arrest/security in substitution for arrest and election is demonstrated by arrest or equivalent security rather than mere service/appearance; however the court declined to grant a stay based on the US insolvency proceedings and instead ordered a limited procedural stay until plaintiffs furnished specified particulars.