Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Garnishee orders

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

LAW KA YEE v. QUALITY DRIVER TRAINING CENTRE LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 339
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3929/2021

The appeal is allowed because the plaintiff established a prima facie case that the 22 former shareholders were indebted to the defendant given doubts about the validity and probative value of the purported waivers in the audited statements, absence of resolutions or evidence of valid waiver, and the existence of an unaudited balance sheet still recording loans; accordingly garnishee orders to show cause should issue.
30 May 2025

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. UNIVERSAL ALL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP210/2025

Default judgment was granted against the Remaining HCA defendants on the pleaded restitution and tracing claims; however the court held that section 52 Trustee Ordinance does not support vesting orders in this fraud/remedial constructive trust context and therefore refused vesting orders, and refused garnishee orders as premature absent a judgment-based enforcement process; costs of HCMP 210 were ordered against the plaintiff, including indemnity costs for the banks if claimed.
5 Jul 2022

RORY ANTHONY CAFFYN-PARSONS AND ANOTHER v. ASIA GRACE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1400/2021

The Judge was satisfied that service of the summons was properly effected and that Garnishee Orders absolute had been obtained and monies paid; accordingly the interlocutory injunctions were discharged as against the 5th, 7th and 11th Defendants and there was to be no order for costs.
25 Feb 2021

TRANSUNION LTD v. HONGKONG TAIJIN INDUSTRY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1353/2019

The Decision is interlocutory and does not determine the substantive rights of Zall within the meaning of Order 59 r 21(1)(a); consequently leave under HCO s14AA was required and, applying the standard for leave, Zall's proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the evidence supporting jurisdiction (Zall's Hong Kong residence and loan situs) and the lack of merit in the double jeopardy argument, so leave to appeal was refused.
3 Jun 2020

NIKKEI AMERICA, INC. AND ANOTHER v. JIALONG TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1914/2019

On the pleaded facts the Court was satisfied that the plaintiffs established fraud and mistake leading to the Payments, that the credited balances and withdrawals were traceable proceeds of those Payments, and that the defendants acted dishonestly; accordingly the Court granted the declaratory and proprietary relief sought and varied and continued the injunction in aid of execution, entering judgment for the plaintiffs under Order 19 Rule 7 and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
21 Oct 2019

PAU KWOK MUI MUI alias KWOK MUI CHART alias KWOK MUI PAU CHART, the sole executrix of the estate of CHART TAK SHING alias TAK SHING CHART alias TAK SHING CHAK, deceased v. CHART WING HUEN MICHAEL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3012
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA762/2018

The stay was refused because, although the appeal was arguable, the defendant failed to demonstrate real prejudice or that payment of the judgment would render the appeal nugatory or cause serious financial hardship, and the defendant significantly delayed bringing the stay application; the plaintiff’s undertaking to pay the judgment into court further removed any claimed prejudice.
25 Jan 2019

HEITKAMP & THUMANN KG v. LIVING PROFIT TRADING DEVELOP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 119
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP173/2018

The Judge's discretionary decision to continue/maintain the proprietary/Mareva injunction was legally sound: on the material before the court there was a good arguable case based on backward tracing and demonstrable evidential weaknesses in the 2nd defendant's bona fide purchaser defence, permitting the inference of risk of dissipation and justifying preservation of the frozen funds; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
15 Jul 2016

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2016

The Court of Appeal held that the application for a stay could be entertained despite procedural shortcomings because the trial judge was unavailable and O59 r14(4) is properly construed as referring to the particular judge; the appellant had arguable grounds (notably on variation by the TRA) and demonstrated potential deleterious effect; balancing prejudice the Court granted a conditional stay of execution pending the appeal on condition that $4,300,000 be paid into court within 21 days, with costs in the cause if condition met and otherwise costs to the defendant.
14 Apr 2009

ALEKSANDER JANEZIC AND OTHERS v. YEO TENG HWEE aka YEO TENG HWEE CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS

Citation

ALEKSANDER JANEZIC AND OTHERS v. YEO TENG HWEE aka YEO TENG HWEE CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9/2009

Where competing proprietary claims to funds in a bank account give rise to a triable issue as to tracing and priority, a court should not make garnishee orders absolute on summary process; the Registrar erred in making the orders absolute and in ordering security for costs for the appeal without jurisdiction, and those orders must be set aside and the garnishee orders nisi restored.
2 Feb 2009

RONALD EDWARD TICKNER v. TRANSGLOBAL CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

RONALD EDWARD TICKNER v. TRANSGLOBAL CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA686/2007

Dismissal of the application was compelled because the 2nd defendant failed to file his own affidavit and relied on hearsay affirmation lacking personal knowledge; the unverified draft defence was unparticularised and unsupported by documents; legal defences advanced (exemption clause, settlement, limitation) were inadequate because exemption clauses do not cover actual fraud, the settlement was repudiated by non‑payment, and Limitation Ordinance s26 postponed limitation in light of undiscovered fraud, so no real prospect of success was shown.