Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inquiry as to damages

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2023

SHIH-HUA INVESTMENT CO LTD v. ZHANG AIDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1304
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV370/2023

The Court of Appeal concluded Harris J did not err: with the benefit of hindsight the Reconstitution Order was wrongly granted in circumstances where Shih-Hua failed to provide the indemnity and adequate funding it had undertaken, independent directors and liquidators could not substantiate the alleged claims, and there was credible evidence (including ledgers) raising an arguable case of loss such that an inquiry as to damages under the cross-undertaking was justified; leave to appeal was unnecessary and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Apr 2019

SHIH HUA INVESTMENT CO., LTD (suing for and on behalf of itself as shareholder of EVERGLORY ENERGY LTD v. ZHANG AIDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2682/2016

The court held that an inquiry into damages should be deferred until the Court of Appeal determines the appeal against the setting-aside of the injunctions because the appeal's outcome may render an inquiry unnecessary; the case was unsuitable for summary assessment and, if the appeal fails, directions should be given for a Master to conduct the inquiry; intended intervenors should be joined now.
22 Sept 2017

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

Citation

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3072/2014

The court ordered enforcement of the undertaking in respect of the depreciation loss but required further inquiry into the alleged default payment because material questions remained; accordingly the court awarded HK$3,508,600 to the 2nd Defendant to be paid from the fortification money, ordered a formal inquiry as to the Default Payment Claim (which the defendants subsequently withdrew), reserved the question of interest, and made a costs order nisi for specified proportions of costs.
26 Nov 2012

ELITT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

ELITT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1312/2012

The Mareva injunction obtained ex parte was discharged because the plaintiff committed material non-disclosure (and active misleading) by failing to disclose that transfers to Japan were approved by its director and were legitimate business payments and by failing to produce adequate evidence of its ability to satisfy the cross-undertaking; on the facts there was no justification for a fresh Mareva injunction and an inquiry as to damages was ordered.
11 May 2012

DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV172/2011

The Court of Appeal held the Deputy Judge erred in concluding the answers were 'no answers at all'; the plaintiff was entitled to invoke privilege in answers though on the facts LPP was not engaged for interrogatories (a),(b),(c) and (e); the appropriate remedy was to grant relief from the sanction of the unless order but subject to terms requiring the plaintiff to provide further answers to specified interrogatories without invoking LPP within a fixed period (14 days from judgment) and reinstating the Points of Defence re Fraud upon compliance; costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
5 Sept 2011

T v. SHIU WAI TUEN

Citation

T v. SHIU WAI TUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2229/2007

The judge exercised discretion to adjourn all four summonses to 15 November to await the outcome of the plaintiff's applications in the Court of Appeal on 1 November, balancing the risk to the plaintiff against the deference owed to concurrent findings of fact; costs of the day's hearing were ordered to be costs in the four summonses.
6 Jan 2010

AVENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. PROMINENT WING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AVENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. PROMINENT WING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA480/2008

On unchallenged evidence the bimi products were substantially similar to the plaintiffs' copyright works, defendants failed to file any evidence or establish independent creation or a triable issue, and thus summary judgment was appropriate: plaintiffs demonstrated primary (and, as applicable, secondary) infringement and concerted action, entitling them to permanent injunctions, delivery up and disclosure orders, an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, interest and costs.
8 Jun 2007

TOY MAJOR TRADING CO. LTD v. HANG SHUN PLASTIC TOYS LTD

Citation

TOY MAJOR TRADING CO. LTD v. HANG SHUN PLASTIC TOYS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2007

The court held that the overwhelming factual similarity between the products together with evidence that the defendant manufactured the items gave rise to an irresistible inference that the defendant knew or had reason to believe the items infringed the plaintiff's copyright; the defendant failed to provide particulars or credible evidence to show a triable issue, so summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal must be dismissed.
5 Nov 2002

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4273/2001

The court reserved the question of costs on the application to discharge the interim injunction to be determined at the conclusion of the trial when factual findings will permit appropriate decisions on indemnity or apportionment; the 1st defendant's costs on the application are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations; and the 1st defendant's summons for an inquiry as to damages was adjourned sine die pending trial.
10 Oct 2001

JAU-HWA STEWART v. E. EXCEL LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

JAU-HWA STEWART v. E. EXCEL LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2493/2001

The court held that the Mareva injunction had been wrongly granted and, absent special circumstances making enforcement inequitable, the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages must be enforced; accordingly the court granted intervention to the two entities and directed an immediate inquiry into damages before a Master, refusing to defer enforcement pending the Utah proceedings.