Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure obligations in ex parte applications

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

華融華僑資產管理股份有限公司 v. 李晓鹏

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1016/2024

The court treated the s.22(2) MJREO defence as a bona fide, non-frivolous triable issue that precluded summary judgment on enforcement at common law and found the ex parte Mareva injunction obtained on incomplete disclosure (failure to disclose the s.22(2) defence and material facts about a Mainland land auction and overstated shareholdings) must be discharged and not re-granted; the ancillary disclosure order falls with the injunction. Costs awarded to defendant on a nisi basis.
6 Nov 2019

ALEKSANDR NARIMANOVICH KUSHAEV v. GREENLY HOLDINGS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1022/2019

Recorder Manzoni SC found there was a good arguable case that Elias, as sole director/shareholder, was involved in misappropriation of Greenly's funds and that there was a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of Mareva relief against Elias; conversely, the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case of dishonest assistance against Jad, so the injunction was discharged as against him.
8 May 2018

HEITKAMP & THUMANN KG v. LIVING PROFIT TRADING DEVELOP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA151/2017

On the material before the court there was a good arguable case that the US$500,000 received into the 2nd defendant's account were traceable proceeds of the Defrauded Sum (including by backward tracing), the 2nd defendant had not discharged the burden of proving she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and there was a real risk of dissipation warranting continuation and variation of the interlocutory relief. Accordingly the disclosure order against the 2nd defendant was set aside and the freezing injunction was varied to cap the freeze at US$500,000; the 2nd defendant's primary…
2 Feb 2017

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. MAPLE RIDGE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. MAPLE RIDGE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC701/2016

The default judgment entered on 25 Oct 2016 was a regular judgment because an outstanding time summons does not stay proceedings or prevent entry of default judgment absent a court order; plaintiff had no duty to disclose a time summons it did not know of; the defendant's draft defence was barred from being relied upon in enforcement proceedings by s.75(4) IRO and did not disclose a defence with a real prospect of success; accordingly both summonses were dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
11 Jul 2014

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

The court found material non‑disclosure in the ex parte freezing application (misreading/overstatement of unpaid dividends and failure to draw attention to evidential material supporting Au's claim to a 35.5% interest) but concluded the non‑disclosure was not deliberate nor so significant as to preclude re‑granting protective relief. Weighing the parties' competing risks, the judge re‑crafted and re‑granted a limited freezing injunction confined to Retribution's property (shares in Kudeta BVI and bank funds), continued the 26 March 2014 interlocutory injunction, and refused the plaintiffs' su…

Hong Kong Case Law

華融華僑資產管理股份有限公司 v. 李晓鹏

ALEKSANDR NARIMANOVICH KUSHAEV v. GREENLY HOLDINGS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS

HEITKAMP & THUMANN KG v. LIVING PROFIT TRADING DEVELOP LTD AND OTHERS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. MAPLE RIDGE HOLDINGS LTD

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS