Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contempt proceedings

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2025

TANG CHAI ON v. TANG CHAK MO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1605
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2527/2020

Where a respondent has failed to comply with a court order and offers no rare or compelling excuse, the court may, under Order 45 r6, grant a further opportunity to comply; absent a demonstrated reason to excuse performance the respondent must comply. In this case non-compliance was proved and no excuse was advanced, but because the Court of Appeal has since granted leave and a stay pending appeal the proper course was to adjourn the summons pending the appeal with costs reserved.
12 Nov 2020

CHENG HENRY v. IMPERIAL SIERRA GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1027
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5318/2019

The Hadkinson application was totally devoid of merit and unnecessary; costs of interlocutory applications are discretionary and, absent convincing reasons otherwise, costs follow the event; non-compliance should be addressed by contempt proceedings and does not justify denying costs to the successful party, therefore the Variation Summons is dismissed and costs are awarded to the plaintiff with certificate for counsel and to be summarily assessed.
10 Aug 2020

LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHANG LAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1969
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT35/2019

The judge correctly exercised judicial discretion in imposing a Hadkinson Order and security; there was no error of law or material misapprehension of fact; the respondents' challenges to the awards and tribunal composition under the CIETAC 2012 Rules lacked sufficient prospects of success and no prejudice from any alleged defects was shown; accordingly the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused with costs.
3 May 2018

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

The court refused the interim 'interim interim' relief because plaintiffs failed to establish a real prospect of success that D1 had breached the Mareva Order or posed a serious risk of doing so: the Debtwire report was unreliable hearsay; counsel's remarks did not establish purchases that would breach the injunction; documentary evidence and prior findings supported D1's assertion that only c.13.19% of the registered 36.11% were beneficially owned by him and trust-held shares are outside the Mareva scope; the sale of c.3.8% did not, on the evidence, diminish D1's unencumbered assets below th…
26 Jul 2017

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW435/2012

The summonses seeking orders compelling production of copies and remote access were dismissed because the factual dispute over KPMG HK's ability to command KPMG Huazhen and the legitimacy of the MOF/state secrecy objections were not appropriately determined on the interlocutory evidence before the court; enforcement must proceed by contempt proceedings if the Liquidators contend there is no lawful excuse for non‑compliance. Costs were reserved as a costs order nisi to be paid out of the company's assets with a certificate for two counsel.
9 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court concluded that where published material creates a substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of a criminal trial the media must be warned and restrained; accordingly the court issued a warning prohibiting publication of anything likely to create a substantial risk of prejudice to HCCC 41/2016, directed that the media not report the Direction during the proceedings, warned of the risk of contempt proceedings, and granted leave to serve the Direction on the Facebook operator to mitigate prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
17 Feb 2016

HAO XIAOYING v. GREEN VALLEY INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

HAO XIAOYING v. GREEN VALLEY INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1393/2015

The application was allowed in part because Hao acted in good faith and had a proper purpose germane to his 20% shareholding; the court was satisfied there was a reasonable case for investigation as to the whereabouts of the RMB23m 2nd Compensation and substantial compensation receivables held in trust by director Wong, but the requests relating to P&Y Industrial were an unjustified fishing expedition and were refused.
15 Jul 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2013

Plaintiff's applications for further particulars, discovery and production were dismissed because affidavits did not stand as pleadings, the requests were fishing for evidence and not necessary at the interlocutory stage, and the court exercised case management to refuse premature, duplicative or unnecessary orders; requests for injunctions, contempt findings, declaratory relief, summary judgment and freezing order were similarly dismissed as premature, unsupported or duplicative pending the substantive hearing of the defendant's strike-out summons; costs follow event and a costs order nisi w…
23 Apr 2012

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2011

The court allowed the variation prohibiting the 1st defendant from withdrawing funds from Chinacomm Accounts 1 and 2 to pay legal fees because the 1st defendant failed the first-stage requirement of demonstrating with full and frank evidence that there were no alternative funds available, given evidence of related parties' financial resources; accordingly the balance of justice favoured preserving the frozen funds for the plaintiffs' proprietary claim.
11 Jan 2011

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3/2006

The court refused to vary the Judgment or to grant an order of possession because it was likely functus officio and because the Declaration and Injunction granted are legally sufficient to protect the plaintiffs' interests; enforcement of the Judgment must proceed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms such as contempt proceedings rather than by varying the substantive orders in the Judgment.