Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery up order

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2026

嘉信大廈業主立案法團 v. 張笑媚

Citation

[2026] HKCA 312
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2026

Section 50 of the High Court Ordinance applies to appeals from the Lands Tribunal in contempt cases so no leave was required; on the evidence the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the respondent remained in control, custody or possession of the IO documents and properties and intentionally disobeyed the Delivery Up Order, therefore contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt; the sentencing exercise was not wrong in principle and the custodial sentence was justified; costs awarded on indemnity basis.
22 Aug 2023

CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY JEWELRY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1002
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2021

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the defendants were in contempt for failing to comply with the recipient disclosure orders because the defendants themselves admitted (by WhatsApp, in-person statements and photographs) undisclosed sales; the manufacturing allegation was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; the supplier disclosure breach necessarily followed from the proved recipient breaches; the sentences and indemnity costs were appropriate and remained undisturbed.
28 May 2019

FACE IT LTD v. LUK MEI LING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1416
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA299/2019

The court found that the customer particulars and communication records, given their collation, use and contractual non-disclosure clauses, possessed the necessary quality of confidentiality; there was sufficient evidence that defendants retained and used such information to solicit customers for a competing business; damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favored equitable protection; accordingly interlocutory relief for delivery up and a negative injunction was granted subject to a fortified cross-undertaking of HK$1,000,000.
3 Aug 2018

NAGRAVISION SA v. ZHUHAI GOTECH INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2297/2016

Court held that the additional limiting wording proposed by the plaintiff was unnecessary and adopted the proviso wording as originally proposed by D1 and D2; ordered clarification adding explicit geographic limitation to paragraph 4 so delivery up and verification obligations apply only to items situate in the relevant territories; accepted that summary assessment of interlocutory costs may be appropriate in respect of the matters before the judge but required apportionment by reference to specific applications/issues rather than blind aggregation; carried out a summary assessment leading to…
14 Jun 2018

NAGRAVISION SA v. ZHUHAI GOTECH INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO LD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2297/2016

On interlocutory evidence the plaintiff established a good arguable case on multiple causes of action, the Texas default judgment met the standards for enforcement in Hong Kong (final, for a definite sum, and by a court of competent jurisdiction), there was sufficient evidence of presence/substantial US-based operations to support US jurisdiction, there was a real risk of dissipation and it was just and convenient to continue interlocutory relief; accordingly the Mareva injunction and delivery up order were continued, bankers records order granted, and the defendants jurisdictional challeng…
23 Nov 2012

CHINA POLY INTERNATIONAL AUCTION LTD v. POLY AUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA POLY INTERNATIONAL AUCTION LTD v. POLY AUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2155/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because, given the urgent context, the discretionary character of the original ex parte order, and the imminent inter partes return date (one week away), the proposed appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it.
2 Sept 2011

GOLDEN DYNASTY (HK) LTD v. TSUI HING WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

GOLDEN DYNASTY (HK) LTD v. TSUI HING WAI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5269/2007

Plaintiff proved on balance that the 1st defendant received monies and dealt with the plaintiff's jewellery and that jewellery was being sold at the 2nd defendant's shop; therefore the 1st defendant is liable for the sums found, the 2nd defendant is liable for conversion (acts at its peril), and the 3rd defendant is liable under her guarantee; relief ordered was delivery up of retrieved jewellery and adjusted monetary judgment based on outstanding price less current market value with interest and costs.
8 Dec 2008

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LOK WAI KEI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LOK WAI KEI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA235/2007

Plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed or had destroyed the documents required by the production orders; the court accepted it was probable she accessed the intranet and may have made notes but that probability did not meet the criminal standard for committal, so the committal motion was dismissed.
6 Jul 2004

MEDIA GLOBAL ASSETS LTD v. CATCHY ENTERTAINMENT LTD

Citation

MEDIA GLOBAL ASSETS LTD v. CATCHY ENTERTAINMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA61/2004

The court refused to depart from the normal costs practice: the defendant had effectively yielded the substantive relief so there was no basis to award costs against the defendant for the summons; however the defendant caused the adjourned hearing and unnecessary further hearing costs and therefore must pay the costs of that hearing; a certificate for two counsel for the 6 February 2004 hearing was justified and granted.
28 Oct 2003

MGA ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. HUNGLAM TOYS CO LTD

Citation

MGA ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. HUNGLAM TOYS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2687/2003

The stay was refused because the defendant failed to produce cogent evidentiary support of grave financial hardship or imminent closure, provided no contracts or turnover data, offered only pro forma invoices, had not shown the plaintiff could not satisfy its cross-undertaking, and the intended variation application was premature; exercise of discretion therefore favoured refusal of the stay.