18 May 2026
Permission was refused because the applicant failed to particularise the decision and grounds for judicial review, provided incoherent and incomplete supporting materials, sought relief that was not properly within judicial review, and consequently showed no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of process.
18 May 2026
Plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sun Ascent sold supplied ordered or possessed the Infringing Goods or packaging or that it breached the disclosure obligations in the Consent Judgment; alleged admissions in prior pleadings were insufficiently clear; hearsay evidence relied upon was untested and not a reliable basis for contempt; consequently no contempt established and Originating Summons dismissed.
18 May 2026
The application for permission was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify the decision and formulate arguable grounds, the materials were disordered and incoherent, the issues and relief sought were not appropriately within the scope of judicial review, and there was no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of the judicial review process.
16 Apr 2026
The court found the SFC had established a prima facie case under s.213 against D2, D4, D5, D9, D11 and D14, there was an appreciable risk of dissipation of their assets, and interim injunctions restraining dealings in the specific Hong Kong assets identified in the Revised Proposed Order up to the maximum sum of HK$394,067,589 would be desirable and have utility under s.213; ancillary disclosure orders for all Hong Kong assets over HK$50,000 were not necessary and were refused.
2 Mar 2026
The court refused to discharge or stay the Disclosure Undertaking because maintaining the Preservation Undertaking and enforcing it by disclosure was necessary in the absence of a demonstration that Plaintiff had no serious issue to be tried and no clear legal impediment to compliance; consequently disclosure was ordered by a fixed date, substantive issues were adjourned for a 3‑hour hearing, the SOC filing was extended on an unless basis and retrospective leave to file the late reply affirmation was granted with a timetable for responses.
17 Dec 2025
Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy (and thus a potential constructive trust claim), they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction. Because the risk of dissipation requirement for continuation of a Mareva injunction was not satisfied, the summonses for continuation were dismissed.
17 Dec 2025
The Court held the Unless Order was lawful and discretionary to enforce the Repatriation Order as a last-resort measure; because the defendant defaulted the sanction (strike out of defence and entry of judgment) took effect automatically and gave rise to an appeal as of right; the primary judge was entitled to disbelieve the defendant's late unsigned draft affirmation, to find flagrant and contumelious non-compliance, and to conclude the sanction was proportionate in all the circumstances; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the judgment entered below was upheld; costs awarded on indemni…
17 Dec 2025
Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy and pleaded a constructive trust claim contingent on deceit, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction; absent such risk the continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions could not be justified and the summonses for continuation were dismissed.
30 Oct 2025
Order for disclosure granted because plaintiff established a proprietary claim to the transferred sums and strong evidence of fraud, the documents sought were sufficiently specific and limited to the relevant period, and the balance of interests favoured disclosure given the bank's lack of substantive opposition and limited request for time to comply.
10 Oct 2025
Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient due diligence and therefore came to equity with unclean hands, and because D1 has no other available assets, the court exercised its discretion: it refused to vary the Mareva injunction into a proprietary-cum-Mareva injunction but allowed D1 to have incurred and billed legal expenses paid from the ICBC account up to and including the filing of its defence subject to a ceiling of HKD 1,200,000 with liberty to apply and restoration for review; the Variation and Amendment Summonses were dismissed and costs reserved.