Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bank account freezing

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2025

CATHAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (Formerly known as “LINFA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD”) 對 TAISHIN INTERNATIONAL BANK CO., LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH (Incorporated in Taiwan with limited liability)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1776
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4274/2024

The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and refused leave to appeal because the application was 14 days late without explanation and the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and no other factor in the interests of justice justified hearing it; costs were ordered against the applicant.
26 Sept 2024

ORLANDO D\'ALIMONTE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1629
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4365/2024

The court was satisfied on the evidence (transfer advices, messages and police reports) that the plaintiff was defrauded, the requested documents are specific and likely to lead to identification/tracing of the wrongdoers and preservation of assets, and the bank's neutral stance and concerns could be addressed by limiting scope (excluding 'correspondence'); accordingly a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order from 27 November 2023 to the date of the order was justified and granted.
12 Apr 2024

朱潔對陳嘉信（高等法院原訟法庭法官）及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1060
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL556/2024

The application for leave to bring judicial review was refused because the applicant sought to challenge a final judicial decision — namely the High Court judge's refusal of permission to appeal under s.28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance — which is not susceptible to judicial review; permitting the JR would amount to a prohibited quasi‑appeal and an abuse of process, and the proposed grounds lacked arguable legal basis.
19 Jul 2007

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Citation

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP599/2007

Although the applicant's explanation for the delay was accepted, the application for extension of time was refused because the applicant lacked a meritorious basis for judicial review: the alleged grounds were either already the subject of adjudicated District Court proceedings or were matters properly pursued in other actions rather than by judicial review, and refusal to negotiate does not constitute a basis for judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

CATHAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (Formerly known as “LINFA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD”) 對 TAISHIN INTERNATIONAL BANK CO., LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH (Incorporated in Taiwan with limited liability)

ORLANDO D\'ALIMONTE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

朱潔 對 陳嘉信（高等法院原訟法庭法官）及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

朱潔對陳嘉信（高等法院原訟法庭法官）及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]