Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim directions

Legal area

Court

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

HCMP1931/2020

The court refused to make garnishee orders nisi absolute and refused to vary the Mareva injunctions because cumulative suspicious circumstances—timing inconsistencies, lack of objective documentary evidence of genuine loan terms, evolving and inconsistent affirmations, and doubts surrounding the debt settlement arrangements—justify a full investigatory trial to determine the bona fides of the judgment debts before enforcement may proceed.
20 Feb 2017

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA623/2015

Because material indicated both the 1st defendant and prima facie a large number of the plaintiffs opposed the proposed placement, and because receivers must preserve the subject matter of litigation and take into account the parties' positions, the court directed the receivers to seek a four‑week adjournment of the CSCG EGM and, if adjournment could not be obtained, to vote against the resolutions.
7 Aug 2015

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2014

The Appeal Board exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing a specific deadline for the Authority to reach a decision because the Telecommunications Ordinance contains no express power permitting the Appeal Board to set such deadlines; once the Appeal Board directs the Authority to investigate further, the timing and conduct of those investigations fall within the Authority's statutory functions and discretion (subject to judicial review), and s7K(3)(b) cannot be extended to cover Apple Asia on the facts because of the plain statutory definition of 'customer equipment'. Accordingly Question 1 is a…
14 Jul 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

Direction 1 was dismissed because it was misconceived and premature: paragraph 18 of the earlier decision already restrained alteration of board composition pending directions; receivers are independent and must be allowed to investigate and, if necessary, apply for directions; the applicant's summons improperly attempted to usurp receivers' duties and hindered their functions, warranting dismissal and an adverse costs order against the applicant.
30 Jul 2014

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV25/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions presented would re-litigate now-pointless issues about whether the January letters were appealable decisions when a subsequent undisputed substantive decision of the Authority (30 June 2014) exists; the leave application improperly sought to raise new evidential grounds not argued below contrary to Flywin principles; and concerns about premature interference with investigations were moot once the substantive decision had been made.
21 Mar 2014

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions relied upon were fact‑sensitive and not of great general or public importance, the OFCA decision point was not properly raised below and lacked notice such that it was inappropriate to elevate it to the Court of Final Appeal, the 'truly engaged' test remains the correct test for jurisdictional issues involving negative decisions and its application depends on factual analysis of the correspondence and background, and no exceptional circumstances justified leave on the 'or otherwise' ground; costs awarded to the appellant.
26 Feb 2001

PERIWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GRANDFIELD PACIFIC HOTEL LTD.

Citation

PERIWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GRANDFIELD PACIFIC HOTEL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW29/2001

The court holds it has jurisdiction to direct provisional liquidators to cease trading if expedient; after removing an unnecessary provision for provisional liquidators' legal costs and adopting the Company's updated booking figures the short-term cash shortfall to continue trading to end-April was approximately HKD808,452, rounded to HKD800,000; provisional liquidators are authorized to cease hotel operations unless additional funding of HKD800,000 is provided, but that authorization is deferred to take effect only after determination of the discharge application on 7 March 2001.

Hong Kong Case Law

南京涵恩物資有限公司 v. WU HUI DI AND ANOTHER

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

PERIWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GRANDFIELD PACIFIC HOTEL LTD.