Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fieri facias

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

KINGSTON FINANCE LTD v. GAINCOURT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP369/2024

On the evidence before the court the Intervener has raised triable issues of fact on both non est factum and undue influence such that her defences cannot be struck out at this interlocutory stage; the plaintiff was on inquiry concerning undue influence and failed to take reasonable steps to allay that risk; the Intervener was properly permitted to file supplemental affirmations and P's summons to exclude those affirmations fails; the Intervener is to be joined as the 4th Defendant and existing stay continued pending determination of the appeal and related proceedings, with costs reserved (or…
17 Jun 2022

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONGGENOS ENTERPRISES CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 534
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP878/2018

The appeal was dismissed because the 2nd Defendant failed to produce post-judgment evidence that would invalidate the Judgment or establish a claim against the Plaintiff, failed to comply with the disclosure requirements to demonstrate inability to pay, and did not show circumstances invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction to justify a stay; consequently the stay of execution was refused.
15 Sept 2014

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2014

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal judgment was not a final judgment under s.22(1)(a), the appellant had not identified any question of great general or public importance and there were no exceptional circumstances under s.22(1)(b), and the court was of the preliminary view that the appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; accordingly no stay was granted.
13 Aug 2014

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2014

The appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for a stay; there was no basis to interfere with the single judge's exercise of discretion and Orders 45 r11 and 47 r1 were not engaged; appeal dismissed.
8 Jul 2014

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3196/2013

The defendant's application for a stay was dismissed because he failed to show an arguable appeal with a reasonable prospect of success; the court was satisfied the bank had proved the sums due under Order 88 r5(6); no special circumstances under Orders 45 or 47 were shown; and the judge's discretionary decisions to admit the plaintiff's affidavit evidence were not plainly wrong and would not be disturbed on appeal.
17 Dec 2009

KWONG FUNG RICE CO LTD v. FIDELITY CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD t/a ROYAL PLAZA RESTAURANT

Citation

KWONG FUNG RICE CO LTD v. FIDELITY CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD t/a ROYAL PLAZA RESTAURANT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2967/2008

Chan acquired title before any writ was delivered, acted in good faith and for valuable consideration; he proved title to most seized items except a specified subset, therefore s68A protects his title and the bailiff must release the seized property to Chan except for the identified items for which execution may proceed; Kwong Fung ordered to pay 90% of interpleading costs plus bailiff costs.
7 May 2007

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KA SHING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KA SHING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3092/2006

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success and did not raise an issue of public interest; accordingly no general stay was granted, but an interim stay of actual possession was ordered until 21 May 2007 to allow the defendant time to apply to the Court of Appeal; costs: plaintiff awarded a gross sum of $600 for the first application and no order as to costs for the second application.
21 Dec 2006

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KA SHING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KA SHING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3092/2006

The Master's 13 December 2006 order is set aside but, because the Statement of Claim does not adequately plead the date or service of termination of the defendant's licence/active service (a material fact necessary to establish trespass), the court grants a limited 14‑day stay of execution in respect of the Writ of Possession & Fieri Facias combined to allow the defendant to apply to set aside the default judgment; the stay is granted solely for this pleading defect and not for any indulgence to the defendant.
14 Feb 2003

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD.

Citation

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3225/2002

The seized stocks and proceeds remained the Defendant's property and the employees had no proprietary interest; the bailiff lawfully executed a valid writ and there was no unconscionable conduct in relation to the property sufficient to impose a constructive trust; therefore the ex parte injunction failed and the declarations sought were denied.
17 Dec 2002

BRAND FARRAR BUXBAUM LLP v. SAMUEL-ROZENBAUM DIAMOND LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BRAND FARRAR BUXBAUM LLP v. SAMUEL-ROZENBAUM DIAMOND LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5191/1998

Claimant was entitled to the seized goods and they were released; however Claimant failed to show a fairly arguable case of substantial grievance or actual financial loss beyond nominal damages resulting from the bailiffs' actions and had abandoned allegations of oppressive or insolent conduct, therefore protection orders were granted for both bailiffs under the common‑law defence and Order 17; costs were allocated largely against the Judgment Creditor (who had pursued piercing the corporate veil but then conceded) with specific directions on bailiff and claimant costs and repayment of part o…