Hong Kong Case Law

27 Jul 2007

NINH DIEP v. LUIGI FERRINI

Citation

NINH DIEP v. LUIGI FERRINI

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI1152/2006

The prohibition order was set aside because the without prejudice statements were protected by privilege and thus inadmissible; even if admissible they did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was about to leave Hong Kong imminently; the plaintiff's unexplained five week delay in bringing the ex parte application was an abuse; and the defendant had not been shown to have a substantial defence. These grounds justified setting aside the prohibition order and refusing renewal.

• Prohibition order
• Order 44a
• Without prejudice privilege
• Leave to depart jurisdiction
• Delay and abuse
• Disclosure

28 Nov 1983

RE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR

Citation

RE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP2644/1983

The Full Bench exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs against the Official Solicitor or the judgment debtors because the Official Solicitor acted in the public interest on reasonable grounds following judicial invitation, was not shown to have acted irresponsibly, and should not be deterred from discharging his functions; furthermore, committal orders under Order 49B rendered the habeas corpus applications in relation to the named debtors unnecessary.

• Imprisonment for debt
• Order 44a
• Order 49b
• Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum
• Fieri facias (fi. fa.)
• Discretion as to costs

30 Jun 1980

EDWARD CHAN v. TECHNICAL WAXES (NZ) LTD

Citation

EDWARD CHAN v. TECHNICAL WAXES (NZ) LTD

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV64/1980

There was insufficient evidence to conclude the defendant was about to leave the jurisdiction to obstruct enforcement of judgment; affidavits indicating a short trip did not meet the Order 44A threshold and the bail order was therefore unjustified and must be discharged.

• Order 44a
• Security for appearance
• Leaving jurisdiction
• Warrant to bring before court
• Discharge of bail

FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LAM SAM KEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LAM SAM KEE AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA151/1967

Application refused because the plaintiff failed to prove that the 1st defendant had disposed of his property in the sense of divesting proprietorship so as to make execution of any judgment likely to be obstructed or delayed; the affidavits (including hearsay) were insufficient and realization of stock to pay creditors did not fall within Order 44A.

• Order 44a
• Disposition of assets
• Show cause to give security
• Imprisonment pending judgment