Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mareva injunction analogy

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2020

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 638
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1659/2012

There has been insufficient significant change of circumstances to warrant reduction of the fixed deposit; the deputy judge's broad estimate was appropriate at the interlocutory stage, the applicant's delay/profits/prejudice grounds do not evidence the required change, and partnership/proprietary assertions do not alter the purpose of the fortification; accordingly the summons to release US$470,000 is dismissed.
29 Nov 2006

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LING MEI

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LING MEI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5678/2006

The judge found that, although absolute attachment cannot be granted before calling the defendant to furnish security or show cause, the totality of evidence (repeated failed contact attempts, service at last known address, registered sale agreement with deposits and imminent completion, absence of other assets) established probable cause to believe the defendant was about to dispose of property with intent to obstruct or delay execution. Accordingly the judge set aside the master's refusal, called the defendant to furnish security of HK$125,887.77 (with specified interest) or produce the pro…
23 Feb 2005

MSR CAPITAL LTD v. KTH RECOVERY FUND II LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MSR CAPITAL LTD v. KTH RECOVERY FUND II LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV404/2004

The Court held that the Deputy Judge erred in authorising payments from the Sub-Fund Account pending resolution of the proprietary dispute because the mareva analogy was inapt and allowing payment (particularly of legal and management fees) would risk compelling the alleged true owner to fund the competing party's defence; accordingly the order authorising the schedule 1 payments was set aside and the KTH defendants must seek appropriate relief in the court below to obtain fees properly payable.
2 Jan 2001

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAN LAM CHUAN AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAN LAM CHUAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6503/2000

Court rejected the illegality and preferential debts objections and held that, subject to proper proof and safeguards, funds restrained may be released to meet reasonable requirements of R5 (including rents, salaries, legal expenses and management fees) on a one-off basis pending the return day because R5 is presumed innocent and the court must balance asset preservation against reasonable interim needs.
3 Nov 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4307/1998

The court held that 'is to be charged' in s14(2)(a) requires a settled intention to commence criminal proceedings coupled with the ability to do so at the time the statement is made; the Government only had a conditional intention dependent on obtaining admissible evidence and therefore was not in a position to charge the respondents, so the restraint orders could not be continued and must lapse.
30 Sept 1987

EVER GOOD TRADING CORPORATION v. CHENG CHING KWOK t/a BONANZA INDUSTRY CO AND OTHERS

Citation

EVER GOOD TRADING CORPORATION v. CHENG CHING KWOK t/a BONANZA INDUSTRY CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5205/1986

Rule 32(4) makes fixed garnishee costs prima facie but not mandatory; the court has a general discretion and where a garnishee's involvement is significant and proceedings are complicated by disclosure (here BNP's disclosure of an additional Australian dollar account and related security), the prima facie fixed costs are displaced and the court may award costs on a higher basis; on these facts the proper exercise of discretion required awarding BNP party and party costs to be paid by the judgment creditor.
12 Aug 1983

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11877/1983

Application dismissed because the praecipe did not expressly request imprisonment in the writ of fi. fa.; the court is not satisfied it has inherent jurisdiction to make an order that would effectively restrain departure after abolition of ne exeat regno; the Crown Proceedings Ordinance bars compelling a Crown officer to take steps that would amount to relief against the Crown; and the proposed order was ambiguous and capable of misleading the Director of Immigration.

Hong Kong Case Law

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LING MEI

MSR CAPITAL LTD v. KTH RECOVERY FUND II LTD AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAN LAM CHUAN AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

EVER GOOD TRADING CORPORATION v. CHENG CHING KWOK t/a BONANZA INDUSTRY CO AND OTHERS

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS