Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte orders

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

CHAN SUK YING (aka CHAN SHOCK YING) v. LEE WAI LING CELINE the personal representatives of THE ESTATE OF PETER LI CHAK MING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA568/2021

The Draft Substituted Statement of Claim discloses an arguable cause of action: on the pleaded facts a common intention constructive trust over the Garments Factory assets is not incapable of being established and the tracing allegation is not plainly and obviously unsustainable; laches is not a bar at this stage given the statutory limitation framework and the plaintiff’s pleaded reliance on Peter and lack of knowledge; accordingly the strike-out order cannot stand and the plaintiff is permitted to apply to amend the SOC within 14 days; the application to set aside the ex parte renewal of th…
28 Mar 2022

VER, ROGER KEITH v. OKEX FINTECH CO LTD (formerly known as KIND CASTLE TRADING LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV630/2020

The appeal was allowed because the defendants' final, detailed undertaking of 9 February 2022 removed any live issue about the Version 8 Agreement and thereby removed any practical basis for maintaining the 2nd defendant as a necessary or proper party; accordingly the Court set aside the order granting leave to serve the 2nd defendant out of the jurisdiction under RHC O.11 r.1(1)(c) and (d)(iii).
28 Jun 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 735
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV320/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal correctly held there were no good reasons to extend the protective writ at the time the Extension Order was made; Harris J's decision demonstrated the liquidators in truth had sufficient information and the master was misled by representations; the assessment of good reason is objective and the alleged points did not raise matters of great general or public importance warranting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
22 Jun 2016

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)

Citation

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2011

Where matters of restructuring and litigation funding were expressly relied on in ex parte applications for extensions of the writ and confidentiality orders, the opposing party is entitled to inspect the redacted materials because open justice and the right to know the case to be met outweigh plaintiffs' asserted confidentiality absent a strong justification; plaintiffs failed to show sufficient reason to withhold the materials which are relevant to the defendant's challenge to the extensions.
26 Nov 2013

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP407/2012

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the substituted grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the 1st ground (relying on an anticipated setting aside of the Ex Parte Order) failed because an Ex Parte Order must be obeyed until revoked and any appeal would be academic; the apparent bias argument failed because there was no appearance of bias at the time the 2nd Unless Order was made and later published reasons cannot be used to impeach an earlier order; pursuing the HCMP 241/2012 application bordered on abuse of process.
23 Nov 2010

CHEN TEK YEE v. CHAN MOON SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN TEK YEE v. CHAN MOON SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2010

No exceptional circumstances justified departure from the usual practice of ordering costs in the cause; the 2nd Defendant's consent avoided a contested inter partes hearing; therefore costs of the injunction are in the cause, but costs incurred since 26 August (including the hearing on costs) are to be paid to the 2nd Defendant and were assessed at $35,000.
8 Nov 2010

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT41/2010

Judge refused to dismiss the respondents' summons at interlocutory stage, held that the alleged communications, if proved, could offend Hong Kong public policy but required factual determination at trial; therefore adjourned the summons and ordered a timetable for affidavits and trial preparation.
27 Aug 2009

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1315/2009

Because the 23 July decision found material non-disclosure and that the plaintiffs misled the court, and because the plaintiffs' late complaints were not part of the case at the inter partes hearing and could not be fairly entertained at the costs stage, the court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs to the defendants (other than the 5th defendant) and certified the attendance of two counsel for the 20 July 2009 hearing; the costs of this application are to be treated as part of the costs awarded in the 23 July decision.
4 Mar 2008

TURBO TOP LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

TURBO TOP LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/2006

Appeal allowed: where interlocutory stays (injunctions) are or remain in force the court must require a cross-undertaking as to damages; the court should not attempt to fix in advance the basis or rate for assessing damages (such matters are for a later enquiry based on facts); the HIBID three-month rate was unjustified and orders below must be varied to include a conventional general undertaking in the recital.
31 May 2007

P v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Citation

P v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC11/2006

The ex parte order was invalid because it was in general terms and did not define the scope of authorization (the draft notice should have been annexed or the order must specify the scope); s.14(1)(d) extends to documents outside Hong Kong, but extraterritoriality is a relevant factor in the court's discretion; the court's discretion to refuse is limited to cases where compliance would be oppressive; the CFI has jurisdiction under the Rules to set aside or vary its ex parte orders and a subject may challenge lack of access to documents but may not litigate the first two statutory criteria at…