Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure in ex parte application

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2022

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LI HAILONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2694
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA508/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the attempted service on the defendant's solicitors was rendered moot by valid service in Shanghai; the defendant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to displace the contractual Hong Kong forum and to show exceptional circumstances or material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; therefore the service out Order stands and the challenge to jurisdiction fails.
13 Aug 2021

A CONSORTIUM COMPRISING TPL AND ICB v. AE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT61/2020

Court held that (1) the defect of naming an unincorporated consortium was cured by amending the proceedings to join TPL and ICB as 2nd and 3rd applicants; (2) the ex parte Enforcement Order was set aside for failure to make full and frank disclosure of pending Dubai nullification proceedings; (3) the respondent failed to establish section 89 grounds to refuse enforcement and the supervisory courts in Dubai had dismissed challenges to the awards, so the awards were enforceable; and (4) accordingly leave to enforce the awards was granted to the joined applicants subject to directions on costs a…
28 May 2020

CHINA LATIN (INTERNATIONAL) ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KEYES GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2/2020

China Latin failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because its assertion of an oral variation was unsubstantiated and contradicted by a contemporaneous Event of Default Demand Letter which was not disclosed in ex parte proceedings; accordingly the injunction was discharged and the application dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
22 Jan 2020

CHAN HON, the administrator of the estate of POON LAI MING, deceased v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI32/2016

The Service Out Order was set aside for material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; alternatively the 2nd and 3rd defendants had submitted to the court's jurisdiction at the Checklist Review hearing and thereby waived earlier irregularities; leave to appeal was granted because the issue of case management as relevant to submission to jurisdiction is novel and has a reasonable prospect of success; the application to vary the costs order nisi was refused and the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs to be taxed with certificate…
27 Feb 2019

GIORGIO ARMANI S.P.A. v. ELAN CLOTHES CO. LTD. (formerly known as DALIAN LES COPIOUS CLOTHES CO. LTD.

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT71/2018

The court applied the modern, pro-arbitration construction of arbitration clauses and the established tests for anti-suit relief: where a clear contractual promise to arbitrate exists and the dispute falls within its scope, the Hong Kong court may grant an anti-suit injunction against a party pursuing foreign proceedings and may order joinder for the limited purpose of securing arbitration, provided there is a strong evidential basis and the balance of convenience favors the injunction.
2 Nov 2018

FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. TIEN\'S ORGANIC FARM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA99/2018

The judge held that the Defendants have an arguable case that Special Condition 30(a) grants right of way by foot or vehicle and the case is not plainly unarguable; the defendants' non-disclosure did not compel discharge because the court properly exercised its discretion; the balance of convenience favors continuation and there was no demonstrated need for fortification; accordingly the application for leave to appeal lacked reasonable prospects and was dismissed.
24 Jun 2011

PACIFIC AEROSUPPLIES LTD v. DAKOTA AIR PARTS, INTL INC

Citation

PACIFIC AEROSUPPLIES LTD v. DAKOTA AIR PARTS, INTL INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1233/2010

The service-out order should not be maintained because the plaintiff made serious material non-disclosures (notably the contemplated and commenced US proceedings and misleading statements about residence), and on balance Hong Kong was not the forum conveniens given the parallel US proceedings, the likelihood that US courts will resolve issues (including national security/public policy questions) and the weakened effect of the exclusive jurisdiction clause once the plaintiff invoked US jurisdiction; accordingly service out under Order 11 should not be allowed.
14 Jun 2010

MAGENTA & CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. KOO YUNG SHOU

Citation

MAGENTA & CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. KOO YUNG SHOU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2047/2008

Because the plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case and committed material non-disclosure by not disclosing relevant emails in the ex parte application, the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs; the court summarily assessed those costs on a broad-brush basis at $270,000 and ordered payment within 14 days.
17 Dec 2009

PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2277/2009

The court held that clause 4 did not create a pledge: the part payment was not treated as a debt, the wording described a free rental and the contract omitted the usual terms (power of sale, timing and dealing with proceeds) that would indicate intention to create a pledge; therefore the 2nd defendant had no right to possession. The court also found no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, so the interlocutory injunction was continued with specified conditions.
7 Jul 2001

KUNG MING TAK TONG CO. LTD. v. PARK SOLID ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

KUNG MING TAK TONG CO. LTD. v. PARK SOLID ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1926/2001

The court held there is a serious question to be tried that an easement/right of way over the existing entrance lobby may have arisen by implication or otherwise, that construction of a new shop would substantially interfere with that right and cause irreparable or hard-to-quantify loss so that damages are inadequate, and that the balance of convenience favors maintaining the status quo; no material non-disclosure justified discharge of the ex parte injunction; given the apparent association between the 1st and 2nd Defendants the injunction should run against both.