Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Impossibility defence

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2024

LO PO WAI, HARRY v. WONG YEE CHUK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 724
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1444/2022

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was in contempt for failing to produce specific documents that were within his power to obtain and that the failures evidenced culpable omission: namely the DY-2018 and DY-2019 reports, the 4/6/2018 bank statement, and specified invoices/contracts/purchase orders; however the plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had de facto control over the PRC Sales Company Yibao to compel production of additional documents, so no contempt was found on that basis. The court dispensed with personal service and adjourne…
26 Jul 2022

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP932/2020

The defendant was guilty of contempt because transfers occurred in breach of the injunction and she authorised, permitted or failed to prevent them through her agent (Tong) who used her legal representative chop; she knew of the injunction and prior contempt ruling, did not take all reasonable steps to prevent breaches, and her defences (impossibility, delay, abuse, HFA undertaking) failed on the evidence.
22 Dec 2017

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV238/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had breached the undertaking or that compliance with the Disclosure Order was within the defendants' power; company officers' conduct could not be imputed to the shareholder defendants absent evidence of agency or control, and committal was inappropriate where defendants had taken bona fide steps and where compliance was effectively impossible; additionally the plaintiffs' ex parte leave application omitted material correspondence and was misleading.
8 Aug 2017

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP108/2016

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Leong, who knew the terms of the injunction and undertaking and had the power and responsibility as Longford's legal representative, deliberately and voluntarily dealt with the Capital Account in breach of the specified signing arrangement (multiple transfers to Current Account, fixed deposits and third parties) and failed to use her best endeavours to procure and produce the Longford ICBC bank statements within the 14 day period; impossibility, mistake of fact and triviality defences were rejected; fixed deposit maturities mostly did not amount to…
8 Aug 2017

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1707/2016

On the evidence the defendant, Leong, had knowledge of the injunction and the undertaking and, notwithstanding available alternatives (including applying to the court), intentionally and voluntarily authorised or permitted 18 transfers and other transactions that constituted dealings with the Capital Account in breach of the injunction and failed to use her best endeavours to produce the Longford bank statements within the 14 day period; defences of impossibility, lack of possession, mistake of fact and triviality were rejected and she is therefore guilty of contempt of court.
18 Nov 2016

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3396/2015

Plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the daughters intentionally breached the undertaking or the disclosure order or that the required information and evidencing documents were within the daughters' power to obtain; given lack of mens rea, arguable impossibility/power issues and the availability of the receivership alternative, committal was not justified and the contempt application must be dismissed.
28 Jan 2014

王秉岐 v. LEE CHEE HO, JULEUS

Citation

王秉岐 v. LEE CHEE HO, JULEUS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA186/2010

The court struck out the RRADC because it disclosed no reasonable defence: the defendant had admitted on multiple occasions that the transfers could be effected without the alleged Necessary Documents, the so‑called document defects and C&P lien did not prevent performance, and the late‑raised 3% share issue was a dilatory tactic rather than a bona fide defence; accordingly summary judgment was unnecessary but would likewise have been appropriate; plaintiff awarded judgment with damages to be assessed and costs.
2 Nov 2012

CHOW SHING KEE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW SHING KEE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1729/2011

The 1st defendant was in contempt because the mandatory injunction remained uncomplied with and the 1st defendant failed to make adequate, timely and effective attempts to achieve compliance; expert agreement demonstrated a technically feasible rerouting via common parts, negating the asserted impossibility or legitimate excuse; alleged non‑disclosure and procedural complaints did not vitiate the proceedings.
4 May 2006

HKSAR v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA62/2005

The application for a certificate under s.32 Cap.484 was refused because the Court of First Instance has no power to grant the claimed extension of time, the application was filed 148 days after judgment and therefore out of time, the asserted reasons for delay were unsupported or false, the substantive point had been previously litigated, and the costs issue did not raise a point of law of great and general importance warranting certification.
21 Sept 1998

ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO. v. SOUTH VIEW HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO. v. SOUTH VIEW HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL135/1998

On the facts the court applied the Hong Kong approach that personal service of an order on directors creates a personal obligation to secure company compliance under Order 45 r.5 without a requirement to prove wilfulness; contempt was established beyond reasonable doubt for failure to cause compliance with Yam J's order, and a financial penalty (HK$100,000 each) was imposed instead of imprisonment after mitigation was considered.