Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent order enforcement

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2022

林對袁

Citation

[2022] HKFC 213
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11085/2014

Because the property was sold before the 1 June 2020 deadline para D did not impose a duty to provide D(ii) information and there was no breach; para F requires the sale price to be calculated by applying the specified residential per‑sq‑ft rate (taken as HK$12,039.44 for March 2020) multiplied by the residential area plus a minimum HK$900,000 for the parking, producing a market minimum of HK$11,121,484.56, and the applicant's sale at HK$9,830,000 created a shortfall of HK$1,291,484.56 payable into the son's account; the prior mortgage arrears HK$211,146 fall within the broad class of mortgag…
1 Sept 2022

MAIN PROFIT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HFREITAS HK LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 905
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2768/2019

The Consent Order, reflecting the parties' settlement, is binding and must be enforced; the defendant failed to pay the agreed remaining HK$68,000; the defendant’s attempt to adduce additional evidence on appeal failed because no special grounds under Order 58 rule 1(4) and Ladd v Marshall were shown; therefore the master’s order compelling payment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2022

KHL v. ZWP also known as ZW

Citation

[2022] HKFC 98
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10908/2012

Court has jurisdiction under 'liberty to apply' to implement and assess compliance with a consent order but not to vary undertakings; disclosure ordered to obtain evidence of past non-compliance must be intrinsically justifiable and necessary for enforcement — here it was not; payments must be deposited into the account specified by the consent order, and H was ordered to pay the calculated arrears into that account; an oral invitation for a Hadkinson order without a summons and affidavit evidence is refused.
14 Jan 2022

MAN’S (ASIA) DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 187
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2252/2013

Because the plaintiff admitted the breaches and did not contest the enforcement application, and the relief sought was enforcement of the Tomlin Order (not a penalty), the court was obliged to grant the defendant's application and enter final judgment in the terms of the draft order adjusted for the payment already made; the solicitors' cessation was ordered in compliance with RHC rules.
20 Oct 2020

YEUNG LIN MUI v. CHU KWOK WAI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1307/2018

Paragraph 1 of the consent Orders was construed in its natural and ordinary meaning to require Vision to record and deposit all Company revenues; the Defendant knowingly and deliberately obstructed Vision from performing those tasks; his conduct had the effect of thwarting the court's process; he had the requisite state of mind (knowledge and non-accidental conduct); the Court, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty of civil contempt and dispensed with personal service/penal notice for pre-4 July incidents due to his prior knowledge of the Orders.
4 Sept 2020

CWYJ v. LTYE

Citation

[2020] HKFC 182
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1135/2016

The court found on the evidence that the respondent had unequivocally relocated to Singapore, declared intention to remain there, ignored court attendance obligations, and given his payment history and substantial arrears, there was a real risk he would not return and enforcement of the consent order would be obstructed or delayed; accordingly the discretion required extending the prohibition order and dismissing the discharge application.
29 Apr 2020

KHL v. ZWP

Citation

[2020] HKFC 93
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10908/2012

Where parties entered a consent order that expressly conditions the vacation of a registered caveat (Form A) on payment of a specified sum, the court will enforce that condition and will not discharge undertakings or vary the order to permit vacation prior to payment absent material change of circumstances and full disclosure; respondent's failure to pay and incomplete asset disclosure warranted refusal to vary and an order for immediate payment of the outstanding sum.
31 Oct 2017

CHU TSAN LEUNG v. LEUNG MEE LING AMY AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU TSAN LEUNG v. LEUNG MEE LING AMY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP774/2016

The consent order was valid and not set aside: the Trustees failed to establish the First Requirement (trust and confidence/ascendancy) and the Second Requirement (manifest disadvantage) for presumed undue influence; upon pronouncement of the decree absolute the plaintiff became sole beneficial owner and the bankrupt had ceased to have any beneficial interest prior to bankruptcy so the property did not form part of the bankruptcy estate; Trustees' counterclaim dismissed.
4 Oct 2017

BKSH nee KSH v. JAB

Citation

BKSH nee KSH v. JAB
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP767/2017

The Court refused broad leave to appeal but granted leave limited to three calculational issues (deduction of rent, J's two years of secondary education charges, and full credit for school fees paid) because those discrete points raised reasonably arguable errors; the Hong Kong Family Court retained jurisdiction to vary ancillary relief despite parties residing in England; absence of expert evidence on English enforceability meant refusal to grant leave to enforce in England was appropriate; the Judge had not misapplied legal principles or law when refusing wider relief or recusal.
10 Mar 2017

TSANG KWOK WAI 及另一人對 TSANG KAM WAH及另一人

Citation

TSANG KWOK WAI 及另一人對 TSANG KAM WAH及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2772/2001

The consent order permitted continued letting of the ground floor and required post-14-01-2004 rents to be held and distributed; accordingly the defendants were entitled to seek directions to implement the consent order, to apply rental receipts for legal costs, property tax and necessary repairs prior to sale, and the plaintiffs must proportionally share one third of any shortfall where costs exceed the specified rental income. The court also allowed D1 and D2 to commence proceedings against WML in their own names and to engage the solicitors named, as this promotes orderly and cost-effectiv…