Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intervention

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1333/2020

The garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi were made absolute because the plaintiffs held final judgments, the orders nisi were properly obtained and served, interveners either withdrew or lacked proprietary priority capable of defeating the orders, and a Mareva injunction does not create a proprietary interest that can prevent the orders being made absolute.
31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA291/2021

Given the plaintiffs' final judgments, valid service, absence of opposition by the defendant and garnishee, and the legal principle that Mareva injunctions do not create proprietary rights or priority, the court will make the garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi absolute and vary the relevant injunctions by consent where interveners have agreed or withdrawn.
31 Dec 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2123/2020

Because the plaintiffs held final judgments, the garnishee and charging orders nisi were validly obtained and served, the garnishee did not oppose, and interveners either withdrew or could not establish proprietary priority (Mareva injunctions do not confer such priority), the court must make the garnishee orders nisi and charging order nisi absolute and may vary related injunctions to permit enforcement.
29 Dec 2025

SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT v. STEVENSEC SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6450
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP57/2024

The court confirmed its earlier refusal of leave to appeal and that the costs order nisi had become absolute; on summary assessment the court reduced the Respondent's claimed section C and D costs to HK$30,000 and HK$35,000 respectively, allowed counsel's fees as claimed, fixed the Respondent's total costs at HK$114,000 on a broad‑brush assessment, and assessed the Interveners' costs at HK$75,899 as reasonable.
12 Nov 2025

SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT v. STEVENSEC SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5460
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP57/2024

The court refused the Applicant's Costs Application and performed a summary assessment reducing the respondent's claimed amounts (allowing HK$75,000 for communications and HK$130,000 for professional work) and assessing the respondent's total costs at HK$427,000; it assessed the Interveners' Conversion Application costs at HK$976,000 and their Costs Application at HK$86,000, and held that a counsel's certificate is not required for one counsel appearing in chambers (Order 62 para 2(3)).
17 Jul 2025

LO FONG HUNG v. FUNG YUEN KWAN, VERONICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2219/2020

The Summons for leave to intervene was dismissed because the intervention was unjustified, filed with inexcusable delay and risked derailing the Trial; the Intended Intervener failed to seek less disruptive alternatives (eg undertakings by correspondence); consequently the Intended Intervener was ordered to pay the 1st Respondent's costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis with a certificate for three counsel, taxed at HK$680,000 payable forthwith.
10 Jul 2025

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6907/2024

The Court maintained the Registrar's stay of the five Order 113 proceedings pending resolution of HCA 154 because the central disputes over entitlement to immediate possession are substantively before HCA 154 and proceeding in the District Court risks duplicity and inconsistent findings; the Interveners were joined as defendants, 鄒 and 中創工程 were permitted to be joined, the OSPs' appeals were dismissed, cross‑appeals allowed in part, leave to amend was granted and costs were apportioned (OSP pay 60% to Interveners, 40% treated as costs in the cause) with specified procedural directions.
10 Jul 2025

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6913/2024

The court exercised its discretion to maintain a stay of all five O 113 summary possession proceedings because the Interveners’ substantive claim in HCA 154 directly challenges the plaintiffs’ entitlement to immediate possession and proceeding in the District Court would create duplicity and risk inconsistent determinations; the court ordered joinder of the Interveners and certain occupiers, permitted amendments, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals and apportioned costs (60% payable by plaintiffs to Interveners, 40% treated as costs in the cause).
25 Apr 2025

KINGSTON FINANCE LTD v. GAINCOURT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP369/2024

The summons for retrospective leave to extend time to appeal was dismissed because D1 and D2 offered inexcusable delay, produced no affidavit evidence from a director to rebut attribution of D3's knowledge to the companies or to explain the merits of their proposed appeal, and therefore failed to show the requisite real prospect of success necessary to justify extending time; case management and prejudice considerations further supported refusal.
30 Aug 2024

RE AA (aka AA)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH76/2023

Both Applicants and VR acted unreasonably in conduct of the litigation; exercising the court's discretion under s.52A(1) the judge declined to order VR to pay Applicants' costs and instead ordered Applicants' costs to be summarily assessed and paid out of AA's estate; the claimed sum was reduced as excessive and assessed at HKD650,000.