Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibition order

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2020

CWYJ v. LTYE

Citation

[2020] HKFC 182
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1135/2016

The court found on the evidence that the respondent had unequivocally relocated to Singapore, declared intention to remain there, ignored court attendance obligations, and given his payment history and substantial arrears, there was a real risk he would not return and enforcement of the consent order would be obstructed or delayed; accordingly the discretion required extending the prohibition order and dismissing the discharge application.
23 Apr 2018

HTL v. CWWM also known as CW

Citation

[2018] HKFC 56
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2445/2016

The ex‑parte prohibition application was unmeritorious because the evidence did not establish probable cause that the respondent was about to leave Hong Kong; however the application was a reasonable attempt to secure interim MPS so the proper order is to make all costs of the ex‑parte order, its extensions and the costs hearing costs in the cause of the ancillary relief, to be taxed if not agreed.
22 Sept 2017

C v. T

Citation

C v. T
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9144/2015

The court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the husband was domiciled in Hong Kong on the date of the petition or that he had incurred the alleged liability while present in Hong Kong or that he carried on business or was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; therefore there was not probable cause of a good cause of action for a Prohibition Order and the ex parte application must be dismissed.
18 Nov 2016

CY v. WTW

Citation

CY v. WTW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2775/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable ground to disturb the judge's discretionary costs decision: the costs order nisi had not been perfected, the judge correctly found the prohibition application unmeritorious on the evidence, the respondent's failure to issue a summons was excusable and relief under Order 2 Rule 5 was properly granted, and consequently the costs order was not wrong in principle; petitioner ordered to pay indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 and further oral reconsideration prohibited under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).
14 Apr 2016

DX v. LN

Citation

DX v. LN
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7870/2014

The court refused to discharge the prohibition order. On the statutory framework and judicial discretion the judge found the Wife was entitled to a prohibition order to protect enforcement of urgent maintenance and costs, the Husband had not shown absence of risk of non-return or that enforcement would not be impeded, the service delays were explainable and not abusive, and the proposed surety was inadequately evidenced; accordingly the restraint was necessary and proportionate.
9 Jun 2009

KZF INVESTMENT LTD v. VINCENT CHOU WEN-PIN

Citation

KZF INVESTMENT LTD v. VINCENT CHOU WEN-PIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA784/2009

The prohibition order was discharged and the appeal dismissed because the plaintiff committed material non-disclosure (failure to disclose the defendant's Hong Kong attendance connected to the guarantee and the 18 May solicitor's letter offering an undertaking) and failed to satisfy Order 44A, rule 2 that the defendant would obstruct or delay judgment, so the ex parte prohibition order could not stand.
10 Dec 2008

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER

Citation

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2008

The appeal is dismissed because the default judgment entered 4 September 2007 remained in force and provided valid grounds to keep the 2nd Defendant in Hong Kong pending contempt proceedings and the examination; the original 17 August 2006 order was not determinative to overturn those measures.
3 Dec 2008

REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA626/2008

The pre-judgment prohibition order became academic upon entry of interlocutory judgment and was discharged; section 21B(1) of the High Court Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance; and there was probable cause to believe the 2nd defendant would leave Hong Kong if not prohibited given his lack of ties, delocalised residences and the interlocutory judgment with likely substantial damages, so the post-judgment prohibition order should be maintained.
21 Nov 2008

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER

Citation

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2008

The judge exercised discretion and refused to order security for costs because the application was late, ordering security would likely derail or significantly delay the scheduled appeal given the prospect of further appeals and a postponed bankruptcy hearing, and the appellant had credible grounds resisting security; therefore the correct course was to make no order on security and no order as to costs to enable the appeal to proceed.
23 Jun 2008

QUESTNET LTD v. WILFRED ROYCE LANE

Citation

QUESTNET LTD v. WILFRED ROYCE LANE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1475/2006

The court refused to discharge the prohibition order because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances since the February 2008 refusal: enforcement in New Zealand did not negate ongoing Hong Kong enforcement proceedings and the claimed hardship and sponsorship necessity were speculative and unproven, so the earlier decision stands.