Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mareva injunction

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5985/2024

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Order of 25 October 2024 was a Mareva injunction only, the District Judge correctly applied the Mareva/risk of dissipation test on continuation, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success or that the decision was plainly wrong. An interim continuation of the injunction was granted pending determination of any appeal to the Court of Appeal.
12 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKDC 781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5984/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Order in question was a Mareva injunction (not a proprietary injunction), the judge correctly applied the Mareva risk-of-dissipation test, and the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or that the judge's conclusions were plainly wrong.
5 May 2026

LAST BRAND, INC. v. FAN SUK HAN trading as eSTAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1565/2025

The garnishee order nisi was made absolute because the plaintiff held final judgment, the garnishee was within jurisdiction and was indebted to the judgment debtor (D2) in respect of the identified account, and the garnishee did not oppose; the injunction against D2 was continued for six months but modified to permit the garnishee to pay funds to the plaintiff's solicitors pursuant to the garnishee order absolute; the application to vary the injunction against D1 was adjourned sine die due to defective service and the unserved second garnishee order nisi.
23 Apr 2026

BPI TRADING (SG) PTE LTD v. BAIG MOHAMMED ADIL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1726/2025

On the material before the court the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case on the pleaded causes of action, the defendant has assets in Hong Kong and there is a real risk of dissipation tied to the alleged dishonest scheme; the balance of convenience therefore favors continuation of the Mareva injunction, and Norwich Pharmacal and banker’s books disclosure from HSBC is justified because there is cogent evidence of serious tortious conduct and disclosure is likely to yield substantial and confined benefits to the plaintiff.
23 Apr 2026

FIRST LASER LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 564
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV396/2025

Special circumstances existed because the 1st plaintiff is Macau incorporated, the 2nd plaintiff is Macanese, the 1st plaintiff has failed to discharge substantial taxed costs, and enforcement of a costs order would likely be difficult and expensive; plaintiffs offered no countervailing evidence or submissions on merits; exercising its residual discretion and applying a broad‑brush approach to quantum, the court ordered security of HK$2,000,000, stayed the appeal until payment, provided for dismissal in default and awarded costs of the application of HK$100,000 to the defendants.
22 Apr 2026

UBE SINGAPORE PTE LTD v. TONGX CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA157/2023

On the facts and documents, plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that D1 was enriched by US$998,750 directly at plaintiff's expense and that enrichment was unjust by reason of lack of legitimate basis and plaintiff's mistake; D3 was enriched by US$194,000 and, applying Re Hallett, that sum is presumed to be plaintiff's money so enrichment was at plaintiff's expense and unjust; no defences were shown; judgment awarded restitution against D1 for US$998,750 and against D3 for US$194,000 with interest, continuation of the Mareva injunction for 6 months, and costs.
21 Apr 2026

MAK NGUN TAI, the Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of LO SIU FUNG, Deceased v. KOON JAMIS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1359/2019

On the facts and the Probate judgment, the Court found a serious issue to be tried, accepted that tracing into mixed funds and an adverse inference were warranted, and that there was a real risk of dissipation and inadequacy of damages; accordingly the asset preservation order, Mareva injunction and ancillary disclosure order were granted and costs ordered to follow the event with HK$480,000 payable to the Plaintiff forthwith.
17 Apr 2026

HAMISH SCOTT MURPHY v. YOKO ISHIBASHI

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP494/2026

Broad Banker's Books disclosure sought to 'police' the Mareva injunction was refused because there was no evidence the defendant had breached the injunction and third‑party discovery for policing is impermissible; however a narrowly tailored order directing HSBC to produce a bank statement showing the balance of the frozen account as at 27 March 2026 was justified, not oppressive, and ordered subject to the plaintiff's undertaking limiting use pending the Japanese appeal.
14 Apr 2026

HONG KONG FINANCE EQUITY MANAGEMENT LTD v. CHEN MAILIN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA64/2024

Recusal refused because the apparent bias test was not met: prior involvement was remote in time, limited to a single interlocutory application, the judge had no recollection or ongoing connection to the matter and there were no cogent reasons indicating a real possibility of bias, so the judge was impartial and entitled to continue presiding.
13 Apr 2026

BGA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA631/2022

Leave to appeal is granted only on Grounds 2(cc) and 3 insofar as they relate to the Lohas Transaction because Greenwood (CA) 2nd meets Ladd v Marshall condition 2 and is reasonably arguable it would affect the assessment of risk of dissipation; leave on grounds attacking the quantum determination for the Ausca Transaction and most other grounds is refused because plaintiffs' valuation evidence was unreliable or deficient and the risk of dissipation was not established on the evidence; Amendment Summons granted; Leave Summons in respect of new evidence acceded; costs orders nisi made reflecti…