Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of court order

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2025

K v. A

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2186/2021

The respondent was guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) because the Li affidavit objectively did not disclose HVD’s exact whereabouts forthwith and was prepared to support a stay application rather than to comply with the disclosure order; the respondent’s assertion he authorised disclosure for that purpose was rejected as incredible. He was guilty on Count 2 (return) because he failed to take the necessary steps to return HVD by the 14‑day deadline and the evidence establishes the omission was deliberate or not accidental; the post‑deadline medical explanations did not purge the origin…
28 Aug 2024

CHAN HIN CHEUNG v. KWAN YAT HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2576
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP106/2024

The Order was clear and served pursuant to the Service Order; the defendant did not comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 by the deadline and offered no explanation. The plaintiff proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly breached the Order, warranting committal. The court ordered a warrant for arrest but suspended execution if the defendant complies with paragraph 3 within 14 days from the decision.
2 Nov 2023

CHEUNG WAI LING VICKI v. CHEUNG OI LING AILEEN (IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI RUBY aka RUBY K. CHEUNG, CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI, CHEUNG CHOY RUBY CHIU KI, CHEUNG RUBY K, CHEUNG RUBY AND CHEUNG RUBY KAY DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP202/2020

Aileen failed to discharge core administrative duties by not producing a true and perfect inventory and account, breaching a court order to provide documents to PwC, withholding distributions to a beneficiary, failing to explain expenses and share transfers, and demonstrating no intention to prosecute administration; given the size and complexity of the estate and the breakdown of effective administration, removal under s.33(3) PAO and appointment of independent professional administrators (PwC partners So and Chin) with revocation of the existing grant was necessary to ensure due and proper…
2 Nov 2023

CHEUNG WAI LING VICKI v. CHEUNG OI LING AILEEN (IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI RUBY aka RUBY K. CHEUNG, CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI, CHEUNG CHOY RUBY CHIU KI, CHEUNG RUBY K, CHEUNG RUBY AND CHEUNG RUBY KAY DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP563/2022

Aileen was removed as administratrix because she repeatedly failed to render a true and perfect inventory and account, breached the court order by withholding documents from PwC, failed to distribute sums due to a beneficiary, and demonstrated lack of interest in administering a substantial estate; replacement by the nominated independent professionals (PwC partners So and Chin) and revocation of the existing grant were required for due and proper administration; costs of the proceedings awarded personally against Aileen while costs of the PwC report borne by the estate.
14 Apr 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIP SIN MAN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 983
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP539/2022

The defendant committed contempt by publishing personal data in breach of the Police Doxxing Injunction and by encouraging dissemination; however, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors (brief duration of the post and removal, youth, low culpability relative to most serious cases, financial hardship and delay in prosecution) warranted a custodial sentence of 21 days which should be suspended for 12 months, together with an order to pay a contribution to the SJ's costs of HK$30,000.
12 Aug 2022

LEE SHU HANG AND ANOTHER v. KAN LAP KEE (also known as “TERRY KAN”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2320/2020

The court found contempt established based on two statements to the SCIA that breached the protocol in the 2/11/2017 Order; having weighed aggravating and mitigating factors (no proved personal financial benefit, some collateral professional consequences, prior contributions and character, and improper attempt by plaintiffs to file a rebuttal affirmation), the appropriate and proportionate sentence is a financial penalty rather than imprisonment, namely a fine of HK$250,000.
30 Mar 2022

PIES, JOHN DAVID v. SIU SHIU KEUNG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 276
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3365/2020

The Court held that appointing a new orthopaedic expert without prior leave in breach of clear case management orders was impermissible; the unsanctioned report of Dr Tio was expunged and costs consequences imposed, while the parties were ordered to seek a supplemental report from the original single joint expert Dr Li within fixed timelines and the Court fixed milestone dates to progress the assessment of damages.
8 Mar 2022

LEE SHU HANG AND LI SIN MAN SELINE (AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LEE SAI NAM, DECEASED) v. KAN LAP KEE (ALSO KNOWN AS “TERRY KAN”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2320/2020

The filing of the 1st and 2nd Statements in the SCIA by Kan, in their terms and for their purpose, constituted substantive decisions affecting the administration of Pak Tat in liquidation and therefore fell within the ambit of §5 of the 2/11/2017 Order; Kan submitted those statements without consulting his co‑liquidator Chen or seeking court directions despite being aware of the order; the breach was intentional in the relevant sense and proved beyond reasonable doubt; Kan’s summons to discharge/set aside leave and to strike out proceedings was dismissed and liability for contempt established…
17 Mar 2016

NOBLE GROUP LTD v. ARNAUD VAGNER AND ANOTHER

Citation

NOBLE GROUP LTD v. ARNAUD VAGNER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA594/2015

The Unless Order was a time order fixing the deadline for filing further and better particulars; the defendants filed Answers within the time specified; viewed as a whole the Answers constituted genuine, non‑illusory further and better particulars made in good faith and therefore there was no breach of the Unless Order; the summons seeking strike out was dismissed and the plaintiff ordered to pay costs to the defendants (order nisi).
2 Mar 2015

HAO XIAOYING v. WONG YIU LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

HAO XIAOYING v. WONG YIU LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1968/2014

Documents evidencing the receipt, transfer or use of the Compensation that W Wong held or was legally obliged to hold for the Company fall within "records of the specified corporation" under s.152FA; the defendants were fully aware of the orders and wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance; selective disclosure did not purge the contempt; contempt established against each defendant.