Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory injunction

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

TAI MO PIU AND OTHERS v. LAM KA YEE EMMA

Citation

[2026] HKDC 837
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3848/2020

The defendant's replacement and locking of the 2019 automated vehicular gate constituted unlawful and substantial interference with the plaintiffs' proprietary easement as created by the Deed of Grant; clause 2(d)'s covenant against obstruction, read in context, precludes a locked automated system that restricts access to only one of the dominant owners; accordingly a mandatory injunction ordering removal of the vehicular gate from the RoW and prohibitory orders preventing obstruction or erection of a new obstructive gate on the RoW are warranted, and costs follow the event.
30 Apr 2026

LAINE, ELSE (雷翠霞) in her personal capacity and in her capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of NG YAU CHEONG, Deceased v. LAINE CHEUK WAI ROGER formerly known as NG CHEUK WAI

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA389/2019

On the balance of probabilities Mother failed to discharge the burden to show that beneficial ownership differed from legal title: contemporaneous documents, timing, admissions and the objective circumstances supported that both the Property and the City Garden Property were gifts to Roger; credibility and pleading defects further undermined Mother's case; accordingly Roger holds absolute beneficial ownership and is entitled to possession and a mandatory injunction to comply with building orders.
2 Apr 2026

LEUNG CHUN WAH NICHOLAS v. CHIN SHIN DIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 597
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3986/2025

Default judgment on liability granted on the basis of the pleaded Statement of Claim; damages are unliquidated and must be assessed, not awarded as a fixed sum based on estimates; mandatory injunction refused because the proposed order was too vague and delegated remedial scope to plaintiff's Authorized Person, failing the required precision for a mandatory injunction.
7 Jan 2026

PET LAND AND ANOTHER v. CHOW PO CHU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 56
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4216/2022

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant alone published the impugned material; the statements (post and Comments 1-3) were defamatory; the 2nd Defendant knew the veterinary diagnosis and causation were uncertain and nonetheless published assertions of fact that bathing caused aspiration pneumonia, thereby demonstrating malice which defeats qualified privilege and renders malicious falsehood established; fair comment similarly fails where statements were not based on true or privileged facts; Comment 4 was not published with malice and was privileged; consequenti…
31 Dec 2025

CHOW KWOK WING, suing by his lawful attorney CHOW CHAK TONG AND OTHERS v. YEUNG OI LING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2205
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2720/2024

The Court accepted the plaintiffs' credible oral evidence and the detailed expert surveyor report, rejected unsupported accusations by the defendant, and held that the specified heads of loss flowed directly and foreseeably from the defendant's water seepage; the Court allowed the assessed sums for each head, awarded interest from the date of writ until judgment at HSBC best lending rate plus 1% and made a costs order nisi.
24 Dec 2025

CHAN HO YAN v. WONG SHUNG YAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2079
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4552/2025

The summons for default judgment was dismissed because the mandatory injunction was drafted imprecisely and therefore unenforceable, the permanent injunction sought was wider than necessary and inappropriate under equitable principles, and there was a real risk that service was irregular as the defendant's flat was occupied by a tenant, making default judgment unsafe.
10 Dec 2025

CHOW KWOK WING, suing by his lawful attorney CHOW CHAK TONG及另二人對 YEUNG OI LING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2031
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3318/2025

Defendant failed to comply with a clear mandatory injunction and subsequent court order to appoint an independent certified expert and to produce a satisfactory certificate; the court had explained the order and consequences to the defendant and she neither filed evidence nor attended; on the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt the defendant was found to have the requisite culpable state of mind and was therefore guilty of contempt; committal to prison until further order and costs on an indemnity basis were appropriate.
21 Oct 2025

GOLDRISE INVESTMENT LTD v. MAK WAI KWAN ANTONIO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1589
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2025

Defendant has not shown an arguable defence; photographic evidence demonstrates continuous and obstructive occupation of the passageways and loading bay reducing access and creating hazards such that damages would not be an adequate remedy; applying American Cyanamid and Yeko Trading the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory relief and the court grants the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions sought (paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons) until trial or further order.
17 Oct 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MOUNTAINVILLE COURT, SHA TIN 對 WAN YEW SHU及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 59
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM99/2022

The deed (cl 4(g)) granted the manager a legal right to enter private units to repair common drainage; the only operative condition in the clause is reasonable notice (absent emergency), the applicant gave reasonable notice and took steps to comply with statutory orders, the respondents' conduct from Sept 2020 to July 2022 substantively obstructed the exercise of that right and prevented performance of cl 6(17) and statutory duties, and damages would not adequately remedy the ongoing public/common interest harm so a mandatory injunction should be granted; Citybase precludes owners imposing ex…
30 Jul 2025

LAI HOI CHING PATRICIA v. CHAN KAM CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1247
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6018/2024

The pleaded facts, supported by management inspections and a surveyor's report, established a strong and obvious case that water seepage originated from the Defendant's unit causing nuisance, negligence and breaches of the DMC and BMO; the Defendant defaulted and is deemed to have admitted the particulars; therefore on the pleadings the court granted interlocutory judgment for the Plaintiff, ordered mandatory remedial relief and directed that damages be assessed, with costs to follow the event.