Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freezing injunctions

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2024

YB v. LX

Citation

[2024] HKCA 238
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP281/2023

The Court refused leave to appeal because the husband failed to show the judge’s discretionary decision to continue paragraph 2.2 of the injunction was plainly wrong: material non-disclosure by the wife was found but the judge permissibly exercised her discretion to continue the injunction to prevent dissipation of matrimonial assets given the unilateral sale and unexplained handling of the deposit; therefore there was no arguable prospect of success on appeal.
10 Mar 2022

S v. G

Citation

[2022] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP96/2021

The Court refused leave to appeal because the judge did not err in principle or law in declining to stay enforcement: the Sample Claim even if accepted did not offset the S Award; the Unliquidated Damages Claim lacked sufficient merit and close connection to S's claim to justify a stay; the judge properly balanced prejudice and discretionary factors; accordingly no reasonable prospect of success existed and leave was refused.
8 May 2019

SERIDOM SERVICIOS INTEGRADOS IDOM S.A.U. v. HENG WEN TRADE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1631/2017

Applying the Poon two-stage broad-brush approach and PD14.3, the Court found the overall claimed costs were on the high side, disallowed or reduced time-costs for duplicated and excessive entries and non-chargeable manual items, and assessed the total recoverable party-and-party costs at HK$210,000 to be paid by the 8th and 10th defendants.
20 Jan 2017

MA WAI CHIU v. NG KIN FAI RICHARD AND OTHERS

Citation

MA WAI CHIU v. NG KIN FAI RICHARD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA61/2017

The court was not persuaded that the plaintiff raised a serious issue to be tried that business opportunities diverted to third parties created a proprietary right to recover the full value of receivables; the real loss was the profits FEL would have made. Accordingly the court refused the interlocutory injunction to restrain dealing with receivables but accepted undertakings and a payment into court of US$58,800 representing a 3% profit margin on the contested invoices, and limited disclosure to the contracts, receipts and receivables already offered by PSG, YMH and Lam.
2 Aug 2011

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. HONTEX INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. HONTEX INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP630/2010

The court declined to determine the framed question under RHC O14A because the issue was not properly joined or factually confined by pleadings, the question as posed was abstract and fact‑sensitive, and insofar as the alleged contraventions replicate Part XIII provisions (eg s298/277) jurisdiction is precluded by Tiger Asia; accordingly the summons was unsuitable for determination without trial.
1 Apr 2010

HUI CHI MING v. KOON WING YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

HUI CHI MING v. KOON WING YEE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1479/2009

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate good reason to suppose, on the balance of the available evidence at the interlocutory stage, that the assets of The Magical 2000 Trust were, in substantive reality, controlled by the 1st Defendant or otherwise susceptible to a procedure that would lead to satisfaction of a judgment against him; the trustee HSBTIL is a genuine independent trustee and the documents and transactions relied upon by the plaintiff were insufficient, singly or cumulatively, to meet the higher threshold required to extend the Mareva injunction to trust assets.
30 Sept 2009

TIFFIT SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FONG SHIK YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIFFIT SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. FONG SHIK YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2382/2006

Because Mr Kwok knew of and assisted his wife's misappropriation by allowing use of his account and failed to prevent the breaches of fiduciary duty, he is civilly accountable for the full shortfall in client securities valued at the date of Tiffit's winding up (2 May 2007) as directed by Kwan J; the Mareva remains necessary to secure enforcement and there was no arguable defence to resist summary judgment.
6 Jul 2007

H v. M

Citation

H v. M
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10288/2004

The stay application was dismissed because the Wife failed to prove the Maine forum was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong; Hong Kong retained stronger and continuing connections (Decree Nisi, consent summons and ongoing ancillary process), the access dispute arising from late allegations did not justify forum shift, and the Husband would suffer real disadvantage (including loss of legal aid and continuity) if HK proceedings were stayed; accordingly the interests of justice and convenience favoured continuation in Hong Kong.
5 Aug 2005

KGL v. CKY AND ANOTHER

Citation

KGL v. CKY AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1453/2002

The court found that three of the four challenged service orders (dispensing with personal service, substituted service by advertisement, and dispensing with service of a late affidavit) were ineffective because there was no evidence the 2nd Respondent had notice; those service failures rendered the resulting disposition orders irregular. Exercising jurisdiction under RHC (including O.35 r.2 with extension and O.2(2) for irregularity), the court set aside the parts of the disposition and service orders affecting the 2nd Respondent and ordered a re-hearing because the 2nd Respondent had real p…
21 May 2004

CHAN CHUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. PBM (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHAN CHUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. PBM (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV19/2003

The appellants failed to prove they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice; the sale was a sham and the appellants were nominees of the fraudster, so the net proceeds of sale remained subject to the plaintiff's equitable proprietary claim; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and no refund to the appellants was ordered.