Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory relief

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

速曉明對畢馬威會計師事務所 (KPMG)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA553/2025

The court found the proposed appeal (CACV 334/2026) had no arguable points; the applicant's purported new evidence did not support the claim and no basis was shown that the appellate court would permit it. Consequently the stay application was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the stay application on an indemnity (recompense) basis because the underlying claims had been found frivolous, abusive and an abuse of process.
9 Feb 2026

EVERCARE HEALTH LTD v. SO LAI KAN also known as GOBBY SO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 230
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3316/2025

At the interlocutory stage the plaintiff established good arguable cases on unjust enrichment, proprietary claim, dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy based on HK$255,470 paid by fraud into the 2nd defendant's MOX account; there are assets in Hong Kong and objective circumstantial evidence supports a real risk of dissipation; the balance of convenience favours continuation of the proprietary‑cum‑Mareva injunction until trial; accordingly paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons are allowed and the injunction is continued, with costs ordered nisi.
17 Dec 2025

KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2105
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5984/2024

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy and pleaded a constructive trust claim contingent on deceit, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction; absent such risk the continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions could not be justified and the summonses for continuation were dismissed.
1 Aug 2025

VASILY TRUBNIKOV v. EVGENY VOLOSOV AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA139/2024

The court refused to vary the Costs Order Nisi. Taking an overall view, defendants were the overall winners and Plaintiff did not establish circumstances justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event; the defendants' evidence and submissions were not improper or unnecessarily excessive, discrete failed issues could not be isolated as to warrant depriving defendants of costs, and the costs of the Summons are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the defendants on a party-to-party basis with certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; costs of the Variation Summons…
17 Jul 2025

VASILY TRUBNIKOV v. EVGENY VOLOSOV AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3050
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA139/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge applied the correct legal tests on leave and injunctions, correctly treated the proprietary claim but exercised discretion not to grant interlocutory proprietary relief where there was no solid evidence of risk of dissipation and the defendants appeared able to satisfy any monetary judgment; attempts to relitigate recent findings without material change constituted an abuse of process and unexplained delay militated against relief.
7 Mar 2025

WELLY GRACE LTD AND OTHERS v. KEUNG YEE MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA649/2023

The application was allowed because the consent injunction did not embody a binding contractual bargain immune from variation (the 9th Defendant had not genuinely contested the injunction), the order was expressly subject to further court order, the proposed payment into court is benign and preserves plaintiffs' recourse so is not abusive, and there was no significant prejudice to plaintiffs; costs were ordered to plaintiffs to pay the 9th Defendant HK$60,000 (summary assessment).
14 Jun 2024

李明實 AND OTHERS v. ACE LEAD PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 523
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP20/2024

The Court refused leave to appeal because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the judge had not erred in principle in declining the proprietary injunction given the disputed nature of the alleged trust property, speculative risk of disposal or change, the balance of convenience against granting the injunction, and the delay in seeking relief.
11 Jun 2024

偉富企業有限公司對李家明

Citation

[2024] HKDC 867
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP178/2023

The court refused the extension of time and dismissed the late appeal because the appellant offered an inadequate explanation for the delay (no contemporaneous affidavit explaining the delay when filing), the delay was not trivial (over three weeks), the appellant's prospects of success were poor given that his defences concerned unrelated disputes with a separate developer entity and did not legally excuse repayment under the mortgage, and the appellant failed to show prejudice that would justify continuing the interim stay; accordingly the interim stay was revoked and costs awarded to the r…
25 Oct 2023

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2003

In light of the prolonged dormancy, the defendant's evidence that the Property was not part of the estate and was acquired with her own funds, the lack of opposing evidence from the plaintiffs and the existence of other protective orders, the court exercised its discretion to release the defendant from the limited undertaking as to the Property as just and appropriate.
30 Sept 2022

RE CHUI TAK KEUNG DUNCAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI2/2021

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the without prejudice proposal would have left provision of unredacted documents subject to the Debtor's approval and would not have put the Creditor in a better position; the Creditor legitimately incurred substantial costs to obtain discovery and subsequent voluntary disclosure justified the costs order; the costs order nisi therefore was not disproportionate and remains in force, with costs of the application summarily assessed at HKD 20,000.