Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protective writ

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2024

SEA HERITAGE HOLDINGS LTD v. NICE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1294/2024

Leave to commence the statutory derivative action was granted and a protective writ permitted because the draft Statement of Claim raised serious issues to be tried within the statutory low threshold, the intended action appeared to be in the interests of the company, the claims risked becoming time-barred, and the interim protective writ subject to non-service caused no prejudice to the company or proposed defendants and could be revoked or prevented from being served if leave ultimately refused.
26 Jul 2023

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

Communications and materials created by the liquidators and their agents with the six experts after the protective writ was issued were produced for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice and evidence for contemplated or pending litigation; therefore they are protected by litigation privilege. The affidavits filed in ex parte applications disclosed only conclusions or effects of those communications and did not deploy the contents so as to waive privilege. Accordingly the discovery/inspection summons is dismissed.
12 Feb 2018

The owners and/or those entitled to sue in respect of a cargo lately laden on board the ship or vessel “KAPPA SEA” v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “KAPPA SEA”

Citation

[2018] HKCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP38/2017

The judge was plainly right that Yangon was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum; the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to issue a protective writ in Myanmar; the court properly declined to impose a condition that the defendant waive any time-bar; leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
8 Aug 2017

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN OFFICIAL LIQUATION) v. KPMG (A FIRM)

Citation

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN OFFICIAL LIQUATION) v. KPMG (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1138/2014

The court found there were good reasons to extend the protective writs because the Liquidators demonstrated genuine investigative difficulty, some delay and obstruction for which KPMG bore responsibility, and because the balance of hardship favoured extension; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to extend the validity of the protective writs to 19 June 2018 while warning against indefinite further extensions.
15 Jan 2016

HO OI MUI AND OTHERS v. KUONI TRAVEL (CHINA) LTD

Citation

HO OI MUI AND OTHERS v. KUONI TRAVEL (CHINA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI642/2015

The defendant's application to dismiss was dismissed because the court was not satisfied the plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed given the complexity of the foreign accident, the unresolved factual issue of the relationship between the defendant and the Egyptian balloon operator which may require inquest evidence, the writ remained unexpired and the claim was not time‑barred; on balance prejudice to the defendant did not justify dismissal and it was premature to make further adverse orders under Order 12 r8A(2).
19 Sept 2013

RE Y LTD

Citation

RE Y LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2418/2013

The court granted the protective writ and gagging order but imposed conditions: a copy of the order, the court's decision and the writ must be sent to the defendant; there is general liberty to apply; and until further order all applications are to be heard by the Companies judge. Anonymity orders are exceptional and must be balanced against the defendant's interests.
4 Nov 2010

LAW YUK WAN v. DR KWOK KWAN HO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW YUK WAN v. DR KWOK KWAN HO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2177/2008

Although the ex parte application was made before the writ expired, the delay was excessive; on the plaintiff\'s undertaking to decide quickly the court exercised its discretion to grant a final extension of 7 days only, with no further extensions, and ordered costs against the plaintiff with taxation of the plaintiff\'s own costs under the Legal Aid Regulations.
4 May 2010

RE X LTD

Citation

RE X LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW382/2006

The court granted a gagging order in respect of the company’s officers and employees because the Provisional Liquidators demonstrated a real risk those persons would take steps to hinder investigations or the prosecution of claims; in respect of the auditors the court ordered a separate protective writ and gagging order but required that the auditors be notified and given liberty to apply to have the order set aside, balancing the exceptional nature of such orders against fairness to the auditors and the need to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations.
14 Dec 2009

CINERENT LTD v. GAN ASSURANCES IARD COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D\' ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS

Citation

CINERENT LTD v. GAN ASSURANCES IARD COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D\' ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA593/2009

The court exercised its discretion under its inherent jurisdiction to deem the writ issued on 2 March 2009 because the delay was caused by Registry practice and not by the plaintiff, backdating is necessary to avoid prejudice to the plaintiff and there was no persuasive reason or demonstrated prejudice that would justify refusing the application.
28 Jun 1999

SK GLOBAL ASIA-PACIFIC PTE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP "AL DHHABIYYAH" AND OTHER

Citation

SK GLOBAL ASIA-PACIFIC PTE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP "AL DHHABIYYAH" AND OTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/1999

The court exercised its statutory power under s16(3) and its inherent case management jurisdiction to grant a temporary stay of the Hong Kong in rem action until 14 days after final determination by the Singapore Court of its jurisdiction over the Singapore actions. The stay was justified because the writ was protective, the plaintiffs lacked security (the primary purpose of an in rem action), and continuation in Hong Kong would risk wasted expense and court resources; accordingly the defendant's summons to compel service of a statement of claim was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintif…