Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good arguable case

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2025

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK CO., LTD. BEIJING PILOT FREE TRADE ZONE BUSINESS CENTRE SUB BRANCH, previously t/a CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK CO., LTD. BEIJING GUANGHUA ROAD BRANCH v. CHINA KINGHO ENERGY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 735
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA809/2024

The court refused leave to appeal because the 4th defendant failed to demonstrate that her intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal that the judge was wrong to find that the plaintiff had a good arguable case for common law enforcement; textual and purposive analysis of the MJREO did not support a conclusion of exclusivity that would oust common law enforcement, and the proposed appeal would have little utility.
12 Feb 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

The court held that the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction should be continued: CEG established a good arguable case of serious misstatements in the consolidated financial statements and of breaches of directors' duties by Xia, there was insufficient assets within Hong Kong to satisfy potential judgment, and a real risk of dissipation existed; alleged procedural defects (lack of prior notice and asserted non-disclosure) were either justified by urgency or not materially prejudicial and did not warrant discharge; the CSRC Decision could not be relied on for its findings but the Liquidators'…
6 Nov 2024

CREATE TOGETHER TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. WELLTEC INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA659/2024

The court continued the proprietary injunction limited to the funds in the Defendant's accounts traced to the Plaintiff because there is a serious issue to be tried in unjust enrichment and the balance of convenience favors preservation; the Mareva (freezing) injunction was not continued because the Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on the fraudulent nature of the contracts at this interlocutory stage.
20 Oct 2023

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU (also known as JIA-BEI ZHU and JESSE JIA-BEI ZHU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3039/2016

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because GNT failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the judge did not err in relying on prior findings and evidence to conclude the plaintiff met the higher 'high probability of success' threshold for refusing security for costs, and the judge permissibly considered outstanding costs orders as a relevant circumstance in exercising the discretion under Order 23 rule 1(1) RHC.
21 Jul 2023

HUANG CHANG FA v. TONG YUK PING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1201/2022

Application for a Mareva injunction dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a good arguable case on key contested facts (timing and consent to added details in the loan agreements and whether amounts remained unpaid), failed to produce solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation, and failed the duty of full and frank disclosure; balancing of convenience favoured refusal of the draconian freezing order.
28 Apr 2021

IDEMITSU CHEMICALS (HONG KONG) CO. LTD v. BRILLIANT ONE SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA148/2020

The discharge application was dismissed and the Mareva injunction continued because plaintiff had shown a good arguable case based on the evidence of fraud and the implausibility and suspicious features of D10's ownership, business records and receipt of funds via underground foreign‑exchange channels, which undermined D10's bona fide purchaser and change of position defences; there was a real risk of dissipation and the balance of convenience favoured continuation; allegations of material non‑disclosure were either unfounded or immaterial.
14 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2439/2016

Material non-disclosure in the ex parte application was not established; the Version 8 Agreement remained a live issue between the plaintiff and D1 and there was evidence consistent with D2 acting as shadow director making him a proper party; the correct approach is to consider the position as at the date of the court's decision on the challenge with all affidavit evidence filed up to the hearing; applying those principles the court set aside the ex parte order dated 9 August 2017 but immediately re-granted leave to serve D2 out of the jurisdiction under Order 11 r.1(1)(c) and (d)(iii), and d…
1 Jun 2016

GREAT WALL PAN ASIA INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CERVERA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREAT WALL PAN ASIA INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CERVERA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2016

Although Great Wall's ex parte application omitted material facts concerning Gong's involvement in the Champ transaction (warranting discharge of the ex parte injunction), the totality of the evidence established a good arguable case and an objective real risk that Yeung and CH's dispositions and encumbrances would render any award unsatisfied; accordingly the ex parte injunction is discharged for non-disclosure but a new Mareva injunction is granted afresh with specified modifications and permitted expenditures, and costs apportioned 50/50 to reflect the breach of duty by Great Wall.
8 Jan 2016

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU AND ANOTHER

Citation

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP869/2014

Leave to amend the draft notice of appeal was granted; leave to appeal was granted only on the Discharge Summons limited to the issue whether there are reasonable prospects of success in challenging the grant of a Chabra-type injunction against GNT based on ownership/control (Ground 2); leave to appeal against the Fortification Summons was dismissed because no legal error was shown and the court had correctly balanced the existence of a final judgment and absence of evidence of loss; costs orders including summary assessment of plaintiff's costs of $120,000 were made.
2 Jul 2015

ACME TEL FZC v. ALFA ENTERPRISES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ACME TEL FZC v. ALFA ENTERPRISES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3313/2014

Leave to admit Acme's late affidavit was granted; there was no material nondisclosure at the ex parte hearing; Acme has a good arguable case including a strong inference of forgery of a bank confirmation which establishes a real risk of dissipation; on balance of convenience the Mareva injunction should continue; Acme entitled to costs on a party-and-party basis.