Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preservation of status quo

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2023

CHEN YUE v. LI SHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA524/2022

The variation application was dismissed because the evidence that one quarter of the Redemption Amount had been paid to third parties was belated and unexplained, the injunction was properly aimed at preserving the Company's assets (Investment 8 was USD4m) pending trial, and D1 failed to show a legal obligation requiring the Company to repay the third parties on partial redemption; the requested time extension became academic when the transfer was credited on 29 May 2023.
5 Mar 2020

YIM TIN FOOK AND ANOTHER v. YU CHOR LAI, KONG WAI HUNG and SOU KA LUN t/a WANG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2613/2006

The court found D2 had demonstrated an arguable appeal and sufficient risk of complex, difficult or irreversible prejudice to the compound and structures to justify a stay of execution of the demolition and actual possession orders pending final determination of the appeal, but D2 failed to show good reason to stay other orders (assessment of mesne profits and costs), which were refused.
23 Aug 2019

HARBOUR FRONT LTD v. MONEY FACTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 916
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP46/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal concluded the judge did not err in law or principle nor reach a conclusion outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement: any delay was not substantial; the correct threshold (serious issue to be tried) was applied; the injunction was appropriately limited to preserve the status quo by restraining an actual sale without Harbour Front's prior approval; damages were not an adequate remedy given the unique family asset and the unquantifiable right to participation in management; and the balance of convenience favoured a limited inju…
20 Nov 2015

TECH GARDEN ASIA LTD v. YUNEEC INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

TECH GARDEN ASIA LTD v. YUNEEC INTERNATIONAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2421/2015

There was a serious issue to be tried and plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case that the Agency Agreement covered Chroma Products and that defendant (or parties within its group) permitted distribution in Taiwan outside the agency; damages were an inadequate remedy given plaintiff's investment and difficulty quantifying loss; there was no unjustified delay or waiver by plaintiff; balance of convenience favoured granting a limited injunction preventing defendant and its agents from selling or distributing Chroma Products in Taiwan except through plaintiff, on plaintiff's undertaking…
14 Jul 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份及另一人 v. 張才奎及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

Direction 1 was dismissed because it was misconceived and premature: paragraph 18 of the earlier decision already restrained alteration of board composition pending directions; receivers are independent and must be allowed to investigate and, if necessary, apply for directions; the applicant's summons improperly attempted to usurp receivers' duties and hindered their functions, warranting dismissal and an adverse costs order against the applicant.
4 Jun 2013

MERIT APEX LTD v.BOWEN GROUP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MERIT APEX LTD v.BOWEN GROUP INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA646/2013

There were serious issues to be tried as to whether the 22 January 2013 notice complied with the Share Charge enforcement requirements and whether the plaintiff was debarred from disputing the claimed loss; damages were inadequate for the plaintiff given the unique nature of the shares and the balance of convenience required preservation of the status quo, therefore an interim injunction restraining the 1st defendant from dealing with the ordinary shares was warranted.
17 Sept 2008

RAINGATE LTD v. CHCP INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

RAINGATE LTD v. CHCP INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA734/2007

The application for a stay was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show good reasons: the appeal was at best arguable not highly likely to succeed; there was no evidential basis that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable or unquantifiable harm absent a stay; the defendant provided an undertaking as to damages and reinstatement would be possible so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory; balancing the interests and starting point that a successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of success, the court refused a stay but granted a limited 7-day extension to comply and ordere…
18 Jun 2008

CALIFORNIA RED LTD v. NEWAY KARAOKE BOX LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CALIFORNIA RED LTD v. NEWAY KARAOKE BOX LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA748/2008

The court granted the interim injunction because, given existing undertakings and an earlier injunction intended to preserve the contractual status quo, correspondence by the 1st and 3rd defendants risked undermining that purpose; accordingly restraining communications and announcements about termination until the substantive determination was justified pending the 17 July hearing.
10 Aug 2007

CHONG KWONG MAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WING HONG

Citation

CHONG KWONG MAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WING HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1675/2007

There was a serious question to be tried on the plaintiffs' defamation and malicious falsehood claims; damages would not be adequate; accordingly an interlocutory injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further publication and threatened intrusions.
15 Jun 2004

FONG YOCK YEE v. HONG KONG CHUNG SHAN LUNG CHAN CLAN ASSOCIATION

Citation

FONG YOCK YEE v. HONG KONG CHUNG SHAN LUNG CHAN CLAN ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2883/2003

There is a serious question to be tried whether the defendant complied with its Articles and observed the rules of natural justice before expelling the plaintiff and removing him as director and chairman; damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiff for loss of membership, office and reputation; accordingly the interlocutory injunction should be continued until trial and an early trial ordered to resolve the substantive disputes.