Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte application

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2025

RE ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF GROUND REGISTERED IN THE LAND REGISTRY AS SECTION F OF LOT NO. 434 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 99 TOGETHER WITH THE MESSUAGES ERECTIONS AND BUILDINGS THEREON (NO. 135 CHAU TAU, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2111/2025

A vesting order under section 45(e) Trustee Ordinance was appropriate and should be made in favour of the Applicant because the trustee of the legal estate is deceased, no grant of probate or letters of administration exists in respect of the trustee's estate, the Applicant holds letters of administration for the Deceased, and the court was satisfied an ex parte application was justified; accordingly the property is vested in the Applicant absolutely in terms of the draft order.
6 May 2025

CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE CO LTD v. LI DIANXIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 650
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2012

The ex parte post-judgment Mareva injunction was justified because secrecy and urgency were established by the defendant's history of dishonest convictions related to the subject matter and by the demonstrable BOC withdrawal showing real risk of dissipation; there was no material non-disclosure by the applicant; the estimated quantum of HK$17,000,000 was supported by the judgment debtor's outstanding accounts and known proceeds; the disclosure order was necessary for enforcement and policing of the injunction; the defendant failed to show cogent reasons to release frozen funds for litigation…
4 Mar 2025

MOUNTAIN ROAD HOLDINGS LTD v. PLAINVIM INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE INDUSTRIAL PARKS HOLDINGS LTD (previously known as PLAINVIEW INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT60/2023

The Originating Summons was dismissed. The plaintiff failed to show the requisite real risk of dissipation to justify a Mareva injunction and failed to justify proceeding ex parte without notice in respect of the interim injunction restraining breach of Clause 6.1; although there was a serious issue to be tried on breach of Clause 6.1, the ex parte ambush was unjustified and there was relevant non-disclosure (not deliberate) in the ex parte papers. Accordingly the defendants were entitled to costs but justice required apportionment: defendants awarded 80% of costs on a party and party basis t…
30 Aug 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD trading as NEW WORLD MILLENIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKCA 839
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP121/2024

Leave to appeal refused in all four applications because the intended appeals had no reasonable prospect of success: plaintiff abused ex parte procedure and made material non-disclosures and misleading statements; there was no urgency or material change to justify injunctions which would extinguish defendant's lien and statutory rights; the lower courts' case management decisions on adjournment, re-amendment, discovery and expert directions were within the permissible discretion and not plainly wrong; consequently refusals of leave and related orders were upheld and costs awarded on an indemn…
7 Jun 2024

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. SZE CHING LAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/2024

The court concluded that §1 of the plaintiffs' summons seeking a mandatory interim injunction lacked sufficient merit because damages were an adequate remedy given the SFC's powers under the Takeovers Code, the heightened merits threshold for a mandatory interim injunction was not met on the materials before the judge, and therefore costs of the inter partes application and the present costs application should be awarded to the 1st defendant while the plaintiffs' claim to costs of the ex parte application was refused; costs below are to be taxed by the taxing master rather than summarily asse…
12 Oct 2023

H, RS v. X, Y

Citation

[2023] HKFC 208
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6733/2023

The court held the requested documents were relevant to the applicant's ancillary relief claims and ordered disclosure (2(1)(e)-(f) and 2(2)(c)-(f)), found the undertakings were sufficient protection equivalent to an injunction but that the applicant was effectively the winner, and exercised discretion under Order 62 r.5 to order the respondent to pay 80% of costs of and incidental to the application inclusive of the ex parte summons with certificate for two counsel, taxed and paid forthwith; penal notice endorsed.
28 Sept 2023

TRH v. KCS

Citation

[2023] HKFC 202
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8704/2023

Although the ex parte urgency threshold was marginal, the court treated the children s welfare as decisive and ordered that access on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday take place initially at the former matrimonial home (with the mother and maternal grandmother required to leave 15 minutes before access) and allowed the father liberty to take the children outside if they were willing; the court refused to vary its prior refusal to order therapy absent agreement and declined to impose the proposed undertakings on an ex parte basis, and made no order as to costs.
30 Jan 2023

RE KAN YUNG TAT

Citation

[2023] HKDC 150
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3642/2022

Section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance applies where the trustee who held legal title is deceased and no personal representative exists; where those conditions are met and no other interested party appears the court should exercise its statutory power to vest the legal title in the beneficial owner — accordingly a vesting order was granted to the applicant for a 1/2 share.
28 Sept 2021

RE HO SIU KAY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1065/2021

Where a trustee has died and there is no personal representative, the court may, under s45 Trustee Ordinance, grant a vesting order and may exercise its discretion to vest the land directly in the beneficiaries; where there are no other interested parties the application can properly proceed ex parte.
3 Feb 2021

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The ex parte bankers' books order was discharged because the plaintiffs lacked sufficient justification for proceeding without notice; however, on an inter partes basis a bankers' books order is appropriate for tracing and is re-granted on modified terms (limiting starting dates to the dates of first receipt into each account, adding liberty for BOC to apply if serious retrieval problems for documents older than seven years, and deleting paragraph 6), with a costs order nisi that BOC pay 50% of the plaintiffs' costs of the discharge summons.