Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Committal to prison

  • 10 Mar 2023

    DADRA INC 對 CHAN CHOI HAR IVY

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 651
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1756/2019

    The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the debtor deliberately failed to make full disclosure at the examinations required by the two disclosure orders (including withholding material bank records and details of a HK$620,000,000 commission and her alleged HK$250,000,000 share). Exercising its discretion, the court ordered committal for 6 weeks and ordered the debtor to pay the creditor's costs of the committal application on an indemnity basis; maintenance fixed at HK$725 per day.

  • 5 Oct 2016

    BL v. SJY

    Citation
    BL v. SJY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7831/2008

    Court found the respondent owed HK$190,605.50, had the ability to pay but wilfully failed to do so, constituting contempt; accordingly the respondent was committed to two months' imprisonment, subject to immediate release upon payment of the full judgment debt and costs totaling HK$190,605.50; the contested additional claim of HK$7,840 was remitted and the interest claim was adjourned sine die for accurate calculation.

  • 19 Sept 2016

    王 對 錢

    Citation
    王 對 錢
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5461/2012

    The judge rejected the respondent's explanations as not credible and found he deliberately resigned and extracted MPF to evade the attachment and payment obligations; accordingly the respondent was in contempt for failing to pay court‑ordered maintenance without a reasonable excuse and committing to 28 days' imprisonment unless he immediately paid the outstanding sum of HKD150,940.85 was appropriate.

  • 30 Sept 2015

    沈 對 李

    Citation
    沈 對 李
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP33/2013

    The court found the respondent had no reasonable excuse, had disposed of and transferred funds (including sale proceeds and transfers to his brother), failed to properly disclose assets and deliberately refused to comply with the maintenance and lump‑sum orders; accordingly committal for 28 days was warranted to enforce the judgment.

  • 8 May 2015

    林 對 郭

    Citation
    林 對 郭
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15762/2010

    The court found the debtor had access to funds in periods when payments could have been made, rejected his explanations (income reduction, employer debt, medical condition, bankruptcy) as either unproven or willful evasion, and concluded his conduct amounted to deliberate non‑compliance with the maintenance order; committal for three months and an order for payment of all judgment summons costs were therefore justified.

  • 29 Dec 2014

    梁志東 對 歐陽范及另二人

    Citation
    梁志東 對 歐陽范及另二人
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW504/2005

    The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent deliberately failed to make full disclosure of specified documents ordered during the examination process (notably certain bank account records and proofs of shareholdings). Although the court did not find beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was able to pay the judgment or that asset dispositions were intended to evade the judgment, deliberate non-disclosure justified committal. The court exercised its discretion to impose imprisonment as punishment and deterrence and sentenced the respondent to 14 days' imprisonment wi…

  • 22 Oct 2014

    KHOO EE LIAM v. CHEN AUN LI, ANDREW

    Citation
    KHOO EE LIAM v. CHEN AUN LI, ANDREW
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3449/2013

    Although costs were to be taxed on an indemnity basis, the court reduced specific items that were excessive or duplicated (communications, document preparation, perusal, hearing preparation and attendance) and allowed counsel's fees in part, resulting in an assessed entitlement of HKD 561,118.86 to the applicant.

  • 24 Jun 2014

    KHOO EE LIAM v. CHEN AUN LI, ANDREW

    Citation
    KHOO EE LIAM v. CHEN AUN LI, ANDREW
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3449/2013

    Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Chen, as sole director and as individual, wilfully breached the undertakings by failing to provide monthly valuation statements, allowing net assets to fall below HK$5,000,000, failing to notify or to inject funds, and that these actions were deliberate attempts to defeat enforcement; therefore committal to prison until further order was appropriate and costs of the contempt proceedings were awarded on an indemnity basis.

  • 16 Aug 2010

    LAM MUI SO AND ANOTHER v. LAM YIN

    Citation
    LAM MUI SO AND ANOTHER v. LAM YIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA115/2008

    Defendant committed to prison for 42 days but sentence suspended for 56 days conditional on producing, within 56 days, a binding written contract for sale of Lot 3061 and Lot 3567 in DD No. 93 showing completion of sale within 84 days; failure to produce the contract will activate the 42‑day committal and costs of $87,948 are awarded to the plaintiff.

  • 11 Sept 2008

    BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA SOC. COOP. AND ANOTHER v. ALUTECH (FAR EAST) CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA SOC. COOP. AND ANOTHER v. ALUTECH (FAR EAST) CO LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1973/2007

    The court concluded that the 5th Defendant knowingly and deliberately breached the interim worldwide Mareva injunction by signing a power of attorney to enable sale of the Australian property; punishment by committal for six months was justified and the court ordered disclosure by affidavit within a realistic period (42 days) and indemnity costs against the 5th Defendant.