Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte disclosure

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2025

CHAN KWOK KUEN v. LAI YAT HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP300/2025

Ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunctions and wide director/management restraints were discharged because ss.728-730 do not permit a member to obtain monetary relief for reflective loss (any restitution or damages belong to the company), the pleaded injunctions did not correspond to the specific conduct alleged, and there was material non-disclosure at the ex parte hearing; a narrower interlocutory injunction was appropriate against the 1st Defendant to restrain drawing cheques below HK$30,000 without the Plaintiff's consent.
26 Feb 2025

YEUNG WING KWONG v. LEE JIA RUI SABRINA LEE, appointed by order dated 6th June 2023 to represent the estate of CHOI WAI KONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1372/2020

The default judgment was set aside by consent; there was no blameworthy conduct by either party (the irregularity resulted from an improbable coincidence of death), the plaintiff was not culpable for failing to conduct an updated death search in the circumstances, and the court exercised its discretion on costs by ordering no order as to costs.
24 Jan 2024

SHINE ARCHIT. DESIGN LTD v. YEE WAI FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 147
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ152/2020

The court held there was good reason to extend the amended writ (delay caused by correction of defendant address and not deliberate), the limitation period had not expired at the time of application, no material non-disclosure occurred at the ex parte stage, and alleged prejudice to defendants was not material to the decision as at the application date; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the extension upheld.
7 Apr 2022

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP361/2020

The court held that registration under the MJREO must be based on an agreement that is itself expressed to specify Mainland courts; the Guarantee did not itself specify a Mainland court so the BHPC judgment was not registrable under the MJREO and registration was set aside. However, the BHPC judgment had sufficient prospect of being treated as final and conclusive for common‑law enforcement; there was a real risk of dissipation and no material non‑disclosure at the ex parte stage, therefore the Mareva injunction was continued on an interlocutory basis until judgment in an action on the BHPC j…
14 May 2021

TSO YUET KUK v. SURE FAMOUS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 524
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2776/2019

Master concluded there were good reasons to extend the writ: the Plaintiff promptly undertook restoration proceedings after acquiring actual knowledge, COVID‑19 and Legal Aid processing delays made earlier service impracticable, the defendants' solicitors' conduct evidenced an agreement or understanding to defer proceeding, and any non‑disclosure in the ex parte affirmation was innocent; accordingly the defendants' application to set aside the extension was dismissed and the extension order was allowed to stand.
29 Nov 2017

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. J.V. FITNESS LTD

Citation

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. J.V. FITNESS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW209/2016

Despite the omission to disclose Mr Tang's contempt finding, the court appointed Ms Hou and Mr Kan as joint and several liquidators and made the regulating order because the liquidation was sufficiently advanced and the Official Receiver did not object; however the court held that the omission constituted a failure of the duty of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application and that Mr Tang would not have been appointed in light of the contempt finding.
4 Aug 2017

HOLLY KEY INVESTMENT LTD v. JIN & CHUN CORPORATION LTD

Citation

HOLLY KEY INVESTMENT LTD v. JIN & CHUN CORPORATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT1303/2017

Application dismissed because the Tenancy Agreement expressly excluded deduction or set-off, the alleged representations were contradicted by the contract and lacked particulars and causation for claimed losses, and the ex parte application complied with statutory requirements so there was no material non-disclosure; consequently there was no arguable defence to the rent arrears and the distress warrant should not be discharged.
1 Jun 2016

GREAT WALL PAN ASIA INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CERVERA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREAT WALL PAN ASIA INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CERVERA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2016

Although Great Wall's ex parte application omitted material facts concerning Gong's involvement in the Champ transaction (warranting discharge of the ex parte injunction), the totality of the evidence established a good arguable case and an objective real risk that Yeung and CH's dispositions and encumbrances would render any award unsatisfied; accordingly the ex parte injunction is discharged for non-disclosure but a new Mareva injunction is granted afresh with specified modifications and permitted expenditures, and costs apportioned 50/50 to reflect the breach of duty by Great Wall.
13 Apr 2015

ACCENT DELIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. YVES BOUVIER AND ANOTHER

Citation

ACCENT DELIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. YVES BOUVIER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP573/2015

Because the Hong Kong proceedings and orders were in aid of the Singapore lead proceedings and the Singapore court had ordered a stay of its disclosure orders pending determination, there was no valid reason to refuse a stay of the Hong Kong disclosure orders; accordingly the court stayed the Hong Kong disclosure orders until 4:00pm on 10 April 2015 or until further order.
25 Jun 2014

OTTO OFFSHORE LTD v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS CO LTD

Citation

OTTO OFFSHORE LTD v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1600/2013

The ex parte order was discharged for failure to make full and frank disclosure; the application for a stay was dismissed because the Guarantee expressly required payment on demand within 15 days despite an arbitration between other parties and the defendant had agreed to Hong Kong jurisdiction, so it would be unjust to stay the proceedings.