Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Garnishee order

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

LAST BRAND, INC. v. FAN SUK HAN trading as eSTAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1565/2025

The garnishee order nisi was made absolute because the plaintiff held final judgment, the garnishee was within jurisdiction and was indebted to the judgment debtor (D2) in respect of the identified account, and the garnishee did not oppose; the injunction against D2 was continued for six months but modified to permit the garnishee to pay funds to the plaintiff's solicitors pursuant to the garnishee order absolute; the application to vary the injunction against D1 was adjourned sine die due to defective service and the unserved second garnishee order nisi.
10 Apr 2026

DINGWAY INVESTMENT LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA309/2022

The court set aside the portion of the default judgment awarding US$45,076,164.38 for knowing receipt because, on the pleaded RASOC, P had no arguable proprietary interest in the Miami Land or the 2021 sale proceeds and therefore could not sustain a knowing receipt claim; however the court upheld liability for unlawful means conspiracy against D6 because P had pleaded compensable loss in the form of loss of the CCCC Shares and the repayment of shareholder loans and that claim was not barred by the reflective loss principle; consequentially enforcement garnishee and charging orders based solel…
31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1333/2020

The garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi were made absolute because the plaintiffs held final judgments, the orders nisi were properly obtained and served, interveners either withdrew or lacked proprietary priority capable of defeating the orders, and a Mareva injunction does not create a proprietary interest that can prevent the orders being made absolute.
31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA291/2021

Given the plaintiffs' final judgments, valid service, absence of opposition by the defendant and garnishee, and the legal principle that Mareva injunctions do not create proprietary rights or priority, the court will make the garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi absolute and vary the relevant injunctions by consent where interveners have agreed or withdrawn.
31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2123/2020

Because the plaintiffs held final judgments, the garnishee and charging orders nisi were validly obtained and served, the garnishee did not oppose, and interveners either withdrew or could not establish proprietary priority (Mareva injunctions do not confer such priority), the court must make the garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi absolute and may vary related injunctions to permit enforcement.
7 Aug 2025

WATY RATNA v. FERRY-HARTONO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1316
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4097/2021

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the 1st Defendant did not, in substance, intend to appeal the garnishee order absolute and in any event failed to explain the nearly six month delay or advance any arguable grounds for appeal; costs of the application were awarded to the Plaintiff.
3 Jun 2025

HO LOK YI v. HA OLIVER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 838
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP479/2024

On the undisputed evidence the court found the plaintiff was defrauded, HK$200,000 of the proceeds were traceable to the 1st defendant's account by the lowest intermediate balance method, and the 1st defendant was unjustly enriched. No defence was raised. Accordingly the 1st defendant was ordered to pay HK$200,000 with pre-judgment interest and to bear costs as assessed; the 2nd defendant's limited role justified a summarily assessed indemnity cost award of HK$10,000 which the 1st defendant must pay to the plaintiff.
30 May 2025

BRANTNER TRANSPORTS SLOVAKIA, S.R.O. v. KYOMURA ELECTRONICS (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1347/2023

The Court held that the Default Judgment was irregular because the Amended Statement of Claim was served before valid service of the Re‑Amended Writ and before leave to serve out of jurisdiction was obtained, and therefore must be set aside as of right; consequentially the garnishee order was set aside; alternatively, even if the judgment were regular the 7th defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success on a bona fide purchaser/change of position defence on the admissible evidence, and other factors did not outweigh the merits, so relief was granted to permit defence and counterclaim to…
28 Apr 2025

南京涵恩物資有限公司 v. WU HUI DI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1747
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1472/2020

The court refused to make the garnishee orders nisi absolute and refused to vary the Mareva injunction because cumulative and reasonable suspicions arising from timing anomalies, lack of documentary evidence of loan terms, discrepancies in amounts, evolving and inconsistent witness affirmations, and the nature of Mainland litigation created sufficient doubt about the bona fides of the default judgment debts to warrant a full investigation and contested resolution at trial; accordingly the court ordered procedural directions to test the bona fides and awarded costs to Nanjing Hanen.
28 Apr 2025

FENGLI GROUP (HONGKONG) CO., LTD v. HT STEEL (WORLD) INTERNATIONAL TRADE HOLDING CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1747
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1014/2021

The judge declined to make the garnishee orders nisi absolute or to vary the Mareva injunctions because, taken cumulatively, the timing anomalies, lack of objective documentary evidence of loan terms, inconsistencies and evolution in affirmations, and the suspicious relationship between Debt Settlement Agreements and Mainland litigation raised sufficient doubt about the bona fides of the judgment debts to require pleadings, evidence and trial rather than immediate enforcement.