Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Living expenses

  • 1 Dec 2015

    RE KIM DOTCOM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE KIM DOTCOM AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP116/2012

    The court exercised its discretion to permit variation of the restraint order to allow reasonable living expenses and subject to appropriate conditions because the applicants had made sufficient disclosure and prior New Zealand High Court findings supported inability to meet expenses from unrestrained assets; however, historic legal costs to identified unsecured creditors (Haldanes in Hong Kong; Simpson Grierson and Paul Davison QC in New Zealand) were disallowed because unsecured creditors should not be paid absent ample assets to meet potential confiscation orders.

  • 6 Nov 2015

    CHINA ART BANK CO LTD v. XU ZHIQIANG

    Citation
    CHINA ART BANK CO LTD v. XU ZHIQIANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2543/2015

    The court exercised its discretion to maintain the disclosure order because of serious fraud allegations, forged documents and an ongoing police investigation; however disclosure was confined to assets subject to the Mareva injunction (Hong Kong and Macau) because the court will not order disclosure of assets outside the injunction's scope; applications to increase living and legal expenses were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

  • 27 Apr 2015

    CHEER SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SIU FAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHEER SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SIU FAN AND OTHERS<br>
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA780/2015

    The court was not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff's claim was proprietary; applying the ordinary Mareva/injunction approach and the Wharf principles, Chan (D4) failed to prove absence of other assets except to the extent of specific mortgage payments. The court allowed a limited variation: Chan permitted to pay mortgage HK$37,500 per month and a one‑off HK$120,000 insurance premium (paid directly to mortgagee and insurer), increased disclosure time to 28 days, continued the Mareva injunction until substantive hearing, and dismissed the defendants' applications for wider legal cos…

  • 19 Sept 2007

    CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW677/2004

    The application was partially allowed: the court held that permitting Mr Lau to withdraw HK$15,000 per week for living expenses did not defeat the purpose of the Mareva injunction because he had disclosed his assets and had no other source of funds; however payment out for legal costs was refused at this stage because there was insufficient evidence of actual costs incurred (only statements on account) and uncertainty about the proposed appeal, so authorisation to pay those legal costs was inappropriate for now.